Lloyd Mark Sutton (a/K/A Mark Sutton) v. Lloyd P. Sutton, Daniel C. Sutton, Paula L. White, and Bob Day ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •     COURT OF APPEALS

    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

    FORT WORTH



    NO. 2-05-052-CV



    LLOYD MARK SUTTON                                                          APPELLANT

    A/K/A MARK SUTTON


    V.


    LLOYD P. SUTTON, DANIEL C.                                                APPELLEES

    SUTTON, PAULA L. WHITE, AND

    BOB DAY


    ------------


    FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WICHITA COUNTY


    ------------


    MEMORANDUM OPINION 1


    ------------


            Appellant Lloyd Mark Sutton perfected this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s rulings granting a temporary injunction in favor of Lloyd P. Sutton, Daniel C. Sutton, Paula L. White, and Bob Day (collectively Appellees) and refusing his request for a temporary injunction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon 1997). On July 22, 2005, during the pendency of this appeal, the trial court signed a final judgment, disposing of all claims and all parties. See id. § 51.014(b). On July 28, 2005, in light of the trial court’s final judgment, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss this interlocutory appeal as moot.

            A justiciable controversy must exist between the parties at every stage of the legal proceedings, including the appeal. Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). Accordingly, if a controversy ceases to exist—“the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome”—the case becomes moot. Id. (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481, 102 S. Ct. 1181, 1183 (1982)); see also Isuani v Manske-Sheffield Radiology Group, P.A., 802 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991). If a case becomes moot, the parties lose their standing to maintain their claims. Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 184.

            The trial court’s final judgment renders the issues presented in this interlocutory appeal moot. Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion and dismiss the interlocutory appeal as moot.



                                                              SUE WALKER

                                                              JUSTICE

     

    PANEL A:   CAYCE, C.J.; WALKER, J.; and SAM J. DAY, J. (Retired, Sitting by Assignment).  


    DELIVERED: August 18, 2005

     

      NOTES

    1. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.  

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-05-00052-CV

Filed Date: 8/18/2005

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/3/2015