Narrative Opinion Summary
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 27, 2022, in The Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Case No. 14-22-00128-CV, involving Appellant Jason Anthony Samuel and Appellee Ashley Cherick Byrd. The appeal originates from an order signed on November 30, 2021, which is deemed interlocutory and unappealable because it does not resolve all claims and parties involved, specifically failing to address Byrd’s counterclaim for attorney’s fees. The order does not indicate it is a final judgment per Texas law, which requires either complete disposition of all claims and parties or a clear statement of finality to be appealable. On August 31, 2022, the court notified the parties of its intention to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless Samuel could demonstrate otherwise by September 12, 2022. Samuel's response did not establish grounds for jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The ruling was made by a panel consisting of Justices Spain, Poissant, and Wilson.
Legal Issues Addressed
Finality Requirement for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was dismissed due to the absence of a final judgment, as required by Texas law for an appeal to proceed.
Reasoning: The order does not indicate it is a final judgment per Texas law, which requires either complete disposition of all claims and parties or a clear statement of finality to be appealable.
Interlocutory Orders and Appealable Judgmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the appeal because the order in question was interlocutory and not a final judgment, as it did not resolve all claims and parties involved.
Reasoning: The appeal originates from an order signed on November 30, 2021, which is deemed interlocutory and unappealable because it does not resolve all claims and parties involved, specifically failing to address Byrd’s counterclaim for attorney’s fees.
Jurisdictional Challenges in Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's jurisdiction was challenged, and the appellant failed to provide sufficient grounds to establish jurisdiction, resulting in dismissal.
Reasoning: On August 31, 2022, the court notified the parties of its intention to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless Samuel could demonstrate otherwise by September 12, 2022. Samuel's response did not establish grounds for jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.