DocketNumber： 14-02-01255-CV
Filed Date： 1/9/2003
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/14/2015
Dismissed and Opinion filed January 9, 2003.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-02-01255-CV
____________
KATHY SPATES, Appellant
V.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Appellee
_______________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 149th District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 18497*RM02
_______________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an attempted appeal from a partial summary judgment signed November 12, 2002. The clerk’s record was filed on December 4, 2002. The record did not contain the order being appealed. Moreover, it appeared from the record that the order would not dispose of all parties to the case. Accordingly, on December 12, 2002, this Court ordered appellant to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing an appealable order and a response demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). On December 17, 2002, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed containing an order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., signed
on November 12, 2002. The record before this Court reflects that Dr. Pepper Bottling Company of Texas, Inc. and Dr. Pepper/7 Up, Inc. are also defendants in the suit, and the record contains no order disposing of the claims against them or any order of severance. Other than a request for an extension of time to file her brief, appellant filed no response to our December 12, 2002 order.
Appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and specific types of interlocutory orders that the legislature has designated as appealable orders. See North East I.S.D. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (listing appealable interlocutory orders). An order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). An order that does not dispose of all issues and parties is interlocutory and is not appealable absent a severance. Id.
Appellant filed a notice of “accelerated” appeal. “An appeal from an interlocutory order, when allowed, will be accelerated.” Tex. R. App. P. 28.1. Thus, it appears appellant is attempting to appeal the interlocutory partial summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which had filed a traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment denying liability for appellant’s injuries from an alleged slip and fall in one of its stores. These is no statutory provision for an interlocutory appeal from such an order granting a partial summary judgment.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Judgment rendered and Opinion filed January 9, 2003.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Hudson and Fowler.