Brian E. Vodicka v. Michael B. Tobolowsky Appeal from 14th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismissed; Opinion Filed August 28, 2017. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00961-CV BRIAN E. VODICKA, Appellant V. MICHAEL B. TOBOLOWSKY, Appellee On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-08135 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Francis, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Justice Stoddart In this appeal, Brian E. Vodicka challenges the trial court’s order sustaining the contest to his affidavit of indigence. Vodicka filed the affidavit seeking to appeal without prepayment of costs an order granting Michael B. Tobolowsky's petition for presuit depositions of two individuals he did not anticipate suing. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 202. The appeal of the order granting Tobolowsky's petition is docketed as appellate cause number 05-17-00740-CV. On Vodicka’s unopposed motion, we have dismissed that appeal by opinion issued this date. The dismissal of that appeal renders this appeal moot. See VE Corp. v. Ernst & Young, 860 S.W.3d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam) (“Generally, an appeal is moot when the court’s action on the merits cannot affect the rights of the parties.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999) (“Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies.”). /Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE 170961F.P05 –2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT BRIAN E. VODICKA, Appellant No. 05-17-00961-CV On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-08135. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Francis participating. V. MICHAEL B. TOBOLOWSKY, Appellee In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. Judgment entered this 28th day of August, 2017. –3–

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.