Mark Little v. The Swan Asbestos and Silica Settlement Trust Appeal from 196th District Court of Hunt County (memorandum opinion by chief justice iii morriss)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-16-00055-CV MARK LITTLE, Appellant V. THE SWAN ASBESTOS AND SILICA SETTLEMENT TRUST, Appellees On Appeal from the 196th District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 83004 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION Mark Little filed a notice of appeal in the 196th Judicial District Court of Hunt County on August 10, 2016, and in the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas on August 11, 2016. Hunt County lies in two different appellate districts. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(f), (g) (West Supp. 2016). Litigants from Hunt County may choose to file a notice of appeal in either the Fifth or the Sixth Court of Appeals. See Miles v. Ford Motor Co., 914 S.W.2d 135, 137 n.4 (Tex. 1995). Notwithstanding the fact that he personally filed his notice in the Fifth Court of Appeals, Little failed to indicate on the face of the notice whether he desired to prosecute the appeal in the Fifth or the Sixth Court of Appeals. Consequently, the Hunt County District Clerk’s Office forwarded Little’s notice to the Sixth Court of Appeals on August 12, 2016. As a result, Little’s appeal is now pending in both the Fifth and the Sixth Courts of Appeals. Under such circumstances, the appellate court with dominant jurisdiction is the court in which the notice of appeal was first filed. Id. at 138; Capehart v. State, 257 S.W.3d 814, 815 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.). In this case, then, the Fifth Court of Appeals is the court with dominant jurisdiction. Pending before this Court is Little’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal in this Court. Because the Fifth Court of Appeals is the court with dominant jurisdiction and because Little has expressed his desire to proceed with his appeal in that court, his motion is well taken. Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 2 Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: October 18, 2016 October 19, 2016 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.
