Cornelius Hudson v. Major Joe E. and Shirley Bryant--Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 of Tarrant County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-12-00311-CV CORNELIUS HUDSON APPELLANT V. MAJOR JOE E. AND SHIRLEY BRYANT APPELLEES ---------FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Cornelius Hudson, pro se, attempts to appeal from a contempt judgment. On August 22, 2012, we notified Hudson of our concern that we might not have jurisdiction over this appeal because contempt judgments generally are not appealable. See Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243, 243 n.1 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding); In re Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tex. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. App. Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding) ( A contempt judgment may be attacked by a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the contemnor is confined) or a petition for writ of mandamus (if no confinement is involved) . . .; however, because a contempt order is not a final judgment, a remedy by appeal does not lie. ) (citation omitted). We stated that unless Hudson or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before September 4, 2012, this appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Hudson filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing this appeal. Because the contempt judgment at issue is not a final judgment, nor is it an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). PER CURIAM PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ. DELIVERED: September 27, 2012 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.
