You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

David George Baugh v. Isaacs Wrecker Service, LLC, Keith Isaacs, Sammie Isaacs, Travis Cearley, Daniel Franklin, Jason Price, Reece Daniel and John Page

Citation: Not availableDocket: 12-10-00043-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 19, 2010; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the appellant, David George Baugh, challenged the dismissal of his lawsuit against Isaacs Wrecker Service, LLC, and several individuals after the trial court granted a plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court addressed the necessity of a final judgment or an appealable order for jurisdiction, as prescribed by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The appellate court initially informed Baugh of the jurisdictional deficiency on February 16, 2010, setting a deadline for submission of the required documents. Baugh sought and received two extensions, with the final deadline set for May 5, 2010. Despite these extensions, Baugh failed to provide the necessary documentation by the deadline. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as per Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 37.2 and 42.3. The dismissal was affirmed by a panel comprising Chief Justice Worthen, Justice Griffith, and Justice Hoyle, in an opinion issued on May 19, 2010. The court's decision underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural requirements for establishing appellate jurisdiction.

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction

Application: Failure to provide the necessary jurisdictional documents results in dismissal of the appeal.

Reasoning: As of the May 5 deadline, Baugh failed to submit a final judgment or appealable order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, referencing Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 37.2 and 42.3.

Extension of Time to File Jurisdictional Documents

Application: The appellant was granted extensions to provide the required documents, demonstrating the court's procedural allowance for additional time.

Reasoning: Baugh filed a motion for an extension, which was granted, extending the deadline to April 26, 2010. He subsequently filed a second motion for another extension, which was also granted, moving the deadline to May 5, 2010.

Jurisdictional Requirements for Appeal

Application: The court requires a final judgment or an appealable order to establish jurisdiction for an appeal.

Reasoning: On February 16, 2010, the court informed Baugh that his appeal lacked a final judgment or an appealable order, which is necessary for jurisdiction.