Mary Patricia Dougherty v. The Northern Trust Company Appeal from Probate Court No 3 of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued December 9, 2021 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-21-00254-CV ——————————— MARY PATRICIA DOUGHERTY, Appellant V. THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, AS CORPORATE TRUSTEE OF THE GENEVIEVE TARLTON DOUGHERTY – MARY PATRICIA DOUGHERTY TRUST, CREATED UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF GENEVIEVE TARLTON DOUGHERTY DATED SEPTEMBER 7, 1970, AS AMENDED BY FIRST CODICIL TO THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF GENEVIEVE TARLTON DOUGHERTY DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 1970, AS AMENDED BY SECOND CODICIL TO THE LAST WILL AND TSETAMENT OF GENEVIEVE TARLTON DOUGHERTY DATED APRIL 16, 1971, AND AS AMENDED BY THIRD CODICIL TO THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF GENEVIEVE TARLTON DOUGHERTY DATED APRIL 13, 1972, Appellee On Appeal from Probate Court No. 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 461524 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Mary Patricia Dougherty, filed a petition for permissive interlocutory appeal, seeking to challenge the trial court’s May 3, 2021 interlocutory order granting the motion for partial summary judgment of appellee, The Northern Trust Company, as corporate trustee of the Genevieve Tarlton Dougherty – Mary Patricia Dougherty Trust, created under the Last Will and Testament of Genevieve Tarlton Dougherty dated September 7, 1970, as amended by First Codicil to the Last Will and Testament of Genevieve Tarlton Dougherty dated September 19, 1970, as amended by Second Codicil to the Last Will and Testament of Genevieve Tarlton Dougherty dated April 16, 1971, and as amended by Third Codicil to the Last Will and Testament of Genevieve Tarlton Dougherty dated April 13, 1972. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3; see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d). We deny the petition for permissive appeal. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Countiss, and Guerra. 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.