Debra Jane Huett, B.A. v. Roberta LloydAppeal from 295th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued May 6, 2014 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00420-CV DEBRA JANE HUETT, B.A., Appellant V. ROBERTA LLOYD, Appellee On Appeal from the 295th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2012-42923 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Debra Jane Huett, attempts to bring a restricted appeal from an interlocutory order denying her request for a temporary injunction. On December 12, 2012, the trial court entered an order denying Huett s motion for a temporary injunction. On May 16, 2013, Huett filed a notice of appeal seeking a restricted appeal of the trial court s order. We dismiss the appeal. Generally speaking, appellate courts only have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); N.E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). Texas appellate courts only have jurisdiction to immediately consider appeals from interlocutory orders if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. See Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352 53 (Tex. 1998). There is no statutory authority, however, for judicial review of an interlocutory order by restricted appeal. See Standifer v. Cepeda, No. 05-05-00725-CV, 2005 WL 2212291, at *2 (Tex. App. Dallas Sept. 13, 2005, no pet.) (dismissing restricted appeal of interlocutory order for want of jurisdiction); Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davenport, 85 S.W.3d 837, 838 (Tex. App. Waco 2002, no pet.) (same); Dispensa v. Univ. State Bank, 951 S.W.2d 797, 799 (Tex. App. Texarkana 1997, pet. denied) (same). Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over this attempted appeal. Moreover, on May 29, 2013, the trial court granted appellee s motion for summary judgment, thereby rendering a final judgment in the case. If a trial court renders a final judgment while an appeal from its grant or denial of a temporary injunction is pending, then an appeal of the ruling on the injunctive relief becomes moot and must be dismissed. See Isuani v. Manske-Sheffield Radiology Group, 2 P.A., 802 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991). Thus, Huett s appeal of the order denying her motion for a temporary injunction was rendered moot by the trial court s final judgment in the case. On July 16, 2013, we informed Huett that her appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless she filed a response demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. Huett failed to file an adequate response. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown. 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.
