Julio Cesar Ramirez v. Jaime Cristobal Ramirez Appeal from 445th District Court of Cameron County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-18-00490-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ JULIO CESAR RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. JAIME CRISTOBAL RAMIREZ, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 445th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria Appellant, Julio Cesar Ramirez attempted to perfect an appeal from an order signed on May 11, 2018, in cause no. 2014-DCL-3821-I. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment dated May 11, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice. The Cameron County Clerk’s Office has informed this Court that no judgment was entered on May 11, 2018. In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c). NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Delivered and filed the 25th day of October, 2018. 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.
