David Henry Hansen v. Terry Ann Hansen ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-07-00320-CV
    John Koo-Hyun Kim, Appellant
    v.
    Austin Community College; Stephen B. Kinslow, as President of Austin Community
    College; Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas; Representative Jaime Valdez; and
    Myra McDaniel, as Attorney for Austin Community College, Appellees
    FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    NO. D-1-GN-07-000586, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellant John Koo-Hyun Kim filed a notice of appeal, apparently seeking to appeal
    from the trial court’s order granting appellees’ motions for a continuance of a June 4, 2007 trial
    setting. Because we lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal, we dismiss the cause for want
    of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
    Generally, courts of appeals may only exercise jurisdiction over appeals from final
    orders or judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 
    39 S.W.3d 191
    , 195 (Tex. 2001) (“A judgment
    is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except
    as necessary to carry out the decree.”). There are certain statutory exceptions to this rule, which
    explicitly allow interlocutory appeals from non-final orders.        See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
    Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2006) (listing permissible interlocutory appeals). An appeal from
    a trial court’s granting of a motion for continuance and delay of a trial setting may not be reviewed
    by interlocutory appeal. See In re A.J.L., No. 02-04-00050-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 4993, at *1
    (Tex. App.—Fort Worth, June 3, 2004, no pet) (mem. op.); Lovall v. Yen, No. 14-01-01108-CV,
    2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 354, at *1-3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 17, 2002, no pet.) (not
    designated for publication).
    Appellant seeks to appeal from the trial court’s order granting a continuance to
    appellees. We may not consider this complaint in an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, we must
    dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
    __________________________________________
    David Puryear, Justice
    Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson
    Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
    Filed: July 6, 2007
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-07-00112-CV

Filed Date: 7/6/2007

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/6/2015