Summary
dismissing the appeal because the law does not provide for judicial review of an interlocutory order transferring venue
Summary of this case from Jackson v. NealOpinion
No. 13-06-700-CV
Opinion filed March 8, 2007.
On appeal from the 24th District Court of De Witt County, Texas.
Before Chief Justice VALDEZ and Justices YAÑEZ and RODRIGUEZ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mary and Phillip Jackson filed suit in DeWitt County against the City of Corpus Christi, John Doe, Jane Doe, Mayor Samuel Lloyd Neal, and District Attorney Carlos Valdez for "illegal seizure." The trial court granted a motion to transfer this matter to Nueces County, Texas. This appeal ensued.
Generally, appellate jurisdiction exists only in cases in which a final judgment has been rendered that disposes of all issues and parties in the case or when a statute authorizes an appeal of an interlocutory order. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Section 15.064 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides the trial court shall determine venue questions from the pleadings and affidavits and that "no interlocutory appeal shall lie from the determination." Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 15.064 (Vernon 2002); see Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. Clark, 38 S.W.3d 92, 95 (Tex. 2000). Thus, the law does not provide for judicial review of an interlocutory order transferring venue.
Appellees, Mayor Samuel Lloyd Neal and District Attorney Carlos Valdez, have each filed motions to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant's response to Mayor Samuel Lloyd Neal's motion fails to establish that this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal.
We grant these motions and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. p. 42.3(a). Any other pending motions are also dismissed for want of jurisdiction.