Carole Ann Wallace v. Barbara Louise Hernandez Appeal from 3rd District Court of Henderson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-14-00343-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS CAROLE ANN WALLACE, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 3RD V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT BARBARA LOUISE HERNANDEZ, APPELLEE § HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Appellant filed a petition for permissive appeal in this court. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d) (West Supp. 2014); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3. However, the petition did not show the trial court’s permission for the appeal. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 168; TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(a). This court sent notice of the defect to Appellant, who then filed a motion in the trial court asking that the interlocutory order she seeks to appeal be amended to include permission to appeal. By order dated December 19, 2014, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion. Consequently, Appellant has not satisfied the requirements for a permissive appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(a) (requiring permission from trial court to appeal interlocutory order not otherwise appealable). Accordingly, we deny Appellant’s petition for permissive appeal. Opinion delivered January 21, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Hoyle, J. (PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JANUARY 21, 2015 NO. 12-14-00343-CV CAROLE ANN WALLACE, Appellant V. BARBARA LOUISE HERNANDEZ, Appellee Appeal from the 3rd District Court of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2014C-0199) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this petition for permissive appeal should be denied. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that Appellant’s petition for permissive appeal be denied; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.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.