Ngocdung Thi Bui, et al v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County--Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 1 of Harris County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 4, 2010. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-09-01064-CV ____________ NGOCDUNG THI BUI, LE VAN NGUYEN, THE STATE OF TEXAS, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION AND TAX ASSESSOR & COLLECTOR OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND THE FOLLOWING TAXING JURISDICTIONS: HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY, HARRIS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, HARRIS COUNTY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM, CITY OF HOUSTON, AND GREATER EAST END MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Appellants V. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 947,084 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appeal from a special commissioners award in a condemnation case. The record reflects that appellants filed notice of appeal to the County Court at Law on December 4, 2009. If either party timely files an objection to the commissioners award, the county court is invested with jurisdiction of the subject matter of the case, not the court of appeals. See Denton County v. Brammer, 361 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Tex.1962); see also Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 21.018 (Vernon 2004) (providing party to condemnation proceeding may file objections in court that has jurisdiction, which shall cite adverse party and try case in same manner as other civil causes). On January 5, 2010, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal on or before January 19, 2010. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellants filed no response. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Yates, Seymore, and Brown. 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.