Ace Parking Management, Inc. v. Main Street Parking, Limited and Brantley Minor--Appeal from 80th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 24, 2012. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-12-00262-CV ____________ ACE PARKING MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellant V. MAIN STREET PARKING, LIMITED and BRANTLEY MINOR, Appellees On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2009-50648 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted discretionary interlocutory appeal of an order signed February 28, 2012, permitting an interlocutory appeal from partial summary judgment orders. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Section 51.014(d)-(f) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended in 2011, provides for appeals from orders that are not otherwise appealable when permitted by the trial court. The 2011 amendments to the statute explicitly apply only to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2011. See Act of May 25, 2011, 82nd Leg. R.S., ch. 203, §§ 3.01, 6.01 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws 758, 761. Before the 2011 amendments, the statute required that all parties agree to the interlocutory appeal. See Act of May 27, 2005, 79th Leg. R.S., ch. 1051, §§ 102, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3512, 3512-13 (former Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §. 51.014(d). This suit commenced in 2009; therefore, it is governed by the prior version of the statute requiring the agreement of all parties before an interlocutory appeal may be taken. On April 2, 2012, this court received notice that appellee, Main Street Parking, Ltd, objects to an interlocutory appeal in this case. On April 3, 2012, this court notified the parties that it would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless any party filed a response within ten days demonstrating that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. No response was filed. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices 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.
