Narrative Opinion Summary
Scott Ewing, D.O. filed a petition for permission to appeal an interlocutory order from the 342nd District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, which denied his motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal due to non-compliance with the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 51.014's requirements for permissive appeals. The trial court's order did not provide a substantive ruling on the legal issues, failing to identify the controlling question of law or explain how an immediate appeal would materially advance the case's resolution. Consequently, the court emphasized that any opinion issued would be advisory, as there was no specific legal issue determined by the trial court. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, with the opinion delivered by Justice Mark T. Pittman on October 25, 2018.
Legal Issues Addressed
Jurisdiction of Appellate Courtssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court of Appeals determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the requirements for a permissive appeal under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 51.014 were not met.
Reasoning: The Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal due to non-compliance with the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 51.014's requirements for permissive appeals.
Prohibition on Advisory Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court emphasized that without a specific legal issue determined by the trial court, any opinion it issued would be advisory in nature, which is prohibited.
Reasoning: Consequently, the court emphasized that any opinion issued would be advisory, as there was no specific legal issue determined by the trial court.
Requirements for Permissive Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court highlighted that the trial court's order failed to identify the controlling question of law or explain how an immediate appeal would advance the case, which are necessary for a permissive appeal.
Reasoning: The trial court's order did not provide a substantive ruling on the legal issues, failing to identify the controlling question of law or explain how an immediate appeal would materially advance the case's resolution.