Kenneth W. Isaac v. Constance Burnside Appeal from Probate Court No 2 of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 4, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00689-CV KENNETH W. ISAAC, Appellant V. CONSTANCE BURNSIDE, Appellee On Appeal from Probate Court No. 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 419,942-401 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appeal from an order signed August 2, 2016, denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until final judgment is entered unless a statutory exception applies. 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). The August 2, 2016 order does not dispose of all pending parties and claims and is therefore interlocutory. After filing a notice of interlocutory appeal in this case, appellant filed a petition in this court for permission to appeal the August 2, 2016 order. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(a). The petition was docketed into appeal number 14-16-00728-CV. That appeal is pending. On September 26, 2016, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s intention to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant’s response acknowledges that the August 2, 2016 order is being appealed in appeal number 14-16-00728-CV and asks that this appeal be “administratively closed.” The appropriate disposition of an appeal over which we lack jurisdiction is dismissal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jamison, McCally, and Wise. 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.