From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cooper v. City of Plano

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Aug 2, 2013
No. 05-12-01445-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 2, 2013)

Opinion

No. 05-12-01445-CV

08-02-2013

JAY COOPER AND TERESA WARD COOPER, Appellants v. CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS, Appellee


DISMISS; and Opinion Filed August 2, 2013.

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-03084-2011


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before Justices O'Neill, Francis, and Fillmore

Opinion by Justice O'Neill

This is an appeal from the trial court's order of dismissal for want of prosecution. Two months after the dismissal, the trial court reinstated the case on its docket. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 165a(3). Because the case was reinstated and remained pending on the trial court's docket, we questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal and directed appellants to file a letter brief addressing our concern. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (subject to a few mostly statutory exceptions, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment, where no parties and claims remain); see also Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) ("Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute." (citations omitted)). Appellants responded, arguing we should not dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction because, "although they no longer have to appeal from the dismissal . . . this case falls under recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine." See Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012) ("A case becomes moot if, since the time of filing . . . the issues presented are no longer 'live' . . .."); State v. Lodge, 608 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Tex. 1980) (recognizing two exceptions: "capability of repetition yet evading review" and "collateral consequences").

We disagree the issue is one of mootness such that the "recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply." While the complained-of order was effectively vacated by the trial court, and to that extent no "live issue" remains, the underlying cause remains pending and no final judgment or appealable order exists that invokes our jurisdiction. See Lehmann, 39 S.W. 3d at 195; Anglin, 842 S.W.2d at 272. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

_____________

MICHAEL J. O'NEILL

JUSTICE
121445F.P05

JUDGMENT

JAY COOPER AND TERESA WARD COOPER, Appellants

V. CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS, Appellee No. 05-12-01445-CV

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District

Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-03084-2011.

Opinion delivered by Justice O'Neill.

Justices Francis and Fillmore participating.

In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

We ORDER that appellee City of Plano, Texas recover its costs of this appeal from appellants Jay Cooper and Teresa Ward Cooper.

_____________

MICHAEL J. O'NEILL

JUSTICE


Summaries of

Cooper v. City of Plano

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Aug 2, 2013
No. 05-12-01445-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 2, 2013)
Case details for

Cooper v. City of Plano

Case Details

Full title:JAY COOPER AND TERESA WARD COOPER, Appellants v. CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS…

Court:Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Date published: Aug 2, 2013

Citations

No. 05-12-01445-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 2, 2013)