City of Dallas, Texas, et al. v. Frank Ojeda, Sr., et al.--Appeal from 68th District Court of Dallas County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-94-156-CV

THE CITY OF DALLAS, ET AL.,

Appellants

v.

FRANK OJEDA, SR., ET AL.,

Appellees

From the 68th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court # 92-11264-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this interlocutory appeal, the City of Dallas complains that the court improperly denied a motion for summary judgment raising its own sovereign immunity and the qualified immunity of its codefendant, Dallas Police Officer Jose Rivera. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 51.014(5) (Vernon Supp. 1995). After the cause was set for submission, we were notified by the City's attorney that the trial cause had been dismissed by the court for want of prosecution on October 18, 1994. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(1). On our request, the City filed a supplemental transcript containing the court's dismissal order. Our clerk notified the parties on February 1, 1995, that this appeal would be dismissed unless one of them showed grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 60(a)(2), 83. No party has responded to our clerk's letter.

Because no controversy exists between the parties, any opinion we were to render on the City's appeal would constitute an advisory opinion. See General Land Office v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569, 570-71 (Tex. 1990). We are constitutionally prohibited from rendering such opinions. See Tex. Const. art. II, 1; Speer v. Presbyterian Children's Home, 847 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Tex. 1993). In fact, we "simply have no jurisdiction to render advisory opinions." See Speer, 847 S.W.2d at 229.

Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Dismissed as moot

Opinion delivered and filed February 15, 1995

Do not publish