george-brown-connie-fearrington-shirley-mahurin-anthony-mitchell-gladys ( 2006 )

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2006

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00962-CV

____________

GEORGE BROWN; CONNIE FEARRINGTON; SHIRLEY MAHURIN; ANTHONY MITCHELL; GLADYS TAMBURINE; DOUGLAS VAVRA; and JOHN WILSON; Appellants

V.

PHARMACIA CORPORATION f/k/a MONSANTO COMPANY; UMB BANK, N.A., as Trustee for the Motco Site Trust Fund; AMOCO GAS COMPANY; AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY; AMOCO OIL COMPANY; AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY; and MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY Appellees

On Appeal from the 10th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 95CV1352

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a partial summary judgment signed August 16, 2005.  On November 21, 2005, appellants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as to appellees, Pharmacia Corporation and UMB Bank because the parties have settled.  On December 19, 2005, appellants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as to the remaining appellees, asserting that the partial summary judgment signed August 16, 2005, is not a final, appealable judgment. 

Absent a statutory or constitutional source of authority for review of an interlocutory order, our appellate jurisdiction is limited to final 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 parties and claims pending on the record in the case, or if it states with Aunmistakable clarity@ that it is a final judgment as to all claims and parties.  Id. at 192‑93.  To determine whether an order actually disposes of all pending claims and parties, we may look to the record in the case.  Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205‑06. If the record does not affirmatively demonstrate our jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed. Southwest Investments Diversified, Inc. v. Estate of Mieszkuc, 171 S.W.3d 461, 467 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th dist.] 2005, no pet.).

A review of the record in this case indicates that the partial summary judgment order is not a final, appealable judgment because it does not dispose of all pending claims and parties.  Absent a final, appealable judgment, this court does not have jurisdiction 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Frost, and Seymore.