In Re: Charlotte Bledsoe, contemnor--Appeal from County Court at Law of Van Zandt County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-12-00296-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: § APPEAL FROM THE CHARLOTTE BLEDSOE, § COUNTY COURT AT LAW CONTEMNOR § VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM On August 16, 2012, the Van Zandt County Court at Law (the Court) filed a notice of appeal from an order of dismissal and other interlocutory orders signed by the Honorable Diane V. DeVasto. The orders pertain to a contempt proceeding initiated by the Court against Appellee Charlotte Bledsoe. On September 14, 2012, we notified the Court, through its counsel, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.1, that the information received in this appeal does not contain a final judgment or other appealable order. The Court was directed to submit a letter brief addressing whether the order of dismissal is appealable and, if so, whether the Court has standing to appeal the order. The Court responded, through its counsel, that it has concluded the order of dismissal is not appealable, and Bledsoe confirmed that she concurs. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Opinion delivered October 24, 2012. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT OCTOBER 24, 2012 NO. 12-12-00296-CV IN RE: CHARLOTTE BLEDSOE, CONTEMNOR Appeal from the County Court at Law of Van Zandt County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. CV04729) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
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.
