Fredrick-Marshal Van Horn v. C. Paul Keefer and/or Jewel Keefer--Appeal from 40th District Court of Ellis County (majority)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-12-00106-CV FREDRICK-MARSHAL VAN HORN, Appellant v. C. PAUL KEEFER AND/OR JEWEL KEEFER, Appellees From the 40th District Court Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 83617 MEMORANDUM OPINION Fredrick-Marshal Van Horn appeals the trial court s denial of his motion for summary judgment. By letter dated March 28, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified Van Horn that this case was subject to dismissal because it appeared that the notice of appeal was untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1; 42.3; 44.3. Further, the Clerk notified Van Horn that it appeared the order Van Horn was attempting to appeal was interlocutory and no interlocutory appeal was authorized. See Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352353 (Tex. 1998) ( Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. (emphasis added)); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2011). The Clerk then warned Van Horn that the Court would dismiss this appeal unless, within 21 days from the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Van Horn responded to the Clerk s letter but the response does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed May 2, 2012 [CV06] Van Horn v. Keefer Page 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.