Barbara Hoffman and Fred Lulling v. Marion County, Texas--Appeal from County Court of Marion County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-10-00048-CV ______________________________ BARBARA HOFFMAN AND FRED LULLING, Appellants V. MARION COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court Marion County, Texas Trial Court No. C00174 Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants, Barbara Hoffman and Fred Lulling, filed their notice of appeal June 14, 2010. They specify in their notice of appeal that it is not an appeal of judgment, but of unlawful and unconstitutional procedures leading up to the improper judgment . . . . We have jurisdiction to hear an appeal only from a final judgment or from interlocutory orders as expressly authorized by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (Vernon 2008); Longview Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Vibra-Whirl, Ltd., 169 S.W.3d 511, 515 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2005, no pet.) (citing Hinde v. Hinde, 701 S.W.2d 637, 639 (Tex. 1985)). Thus, an attempt to appeal from issues or procedures rather than from a final judgment or from the type of interlocutory order as authorized by the Legislature does not place this proceeding within the bounds of the jurisdiction of this Court. Even if we treat this appeal as from the judgment of the trial court, this is a civil judgment divesting a person of ownership of animals and, according to the statute, [t]he decision of the county court or county court at law under this section is final and may not be further appealed. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 821.025(a) (Vernon 2010). We thus have no jurisdiction over an appeal from a judgment of this type. 2 We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: June 24, 2010 June 25, 2010 3
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.
