Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 12-01-2022
Case Style:
Kaleb Ray Russell a/k/a Kaleb Ray Sanderson v. Ashton Paige Weaver
Case Number: 02-22-00129-CV
Judge: Per Curiam
Court:
Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Parker County
Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800
Defendant's Attorney: Jennifer S. Hamilton
Description:
Fort Worth, Texas – Civil Litigation lawyer represented Appellant with appealing from the trial court’s “Final Protective Order”.
Appellant Kaleb Ray Russell a/k/a Kaleb Ray Sanderson attempts to appeal
from the trial court’s “Final Protective Order” signed March 15, 2022. After we
received the record, it was apparent that the underlying suit started with an original
petition in a suit affecting the parent–child relationship and that an application for a
protective order was filed simultaneously with the petition. The original petition
sought a permanent injunction, along with other relief. The final protective order
denied “all relief requested in the Application for Protective Order but not expressly
granted”; it did not mention the relief that was requested in the petition.
Accordingly, on May 25, 2022, we informed Appellant that we were concerned
that we might not have jurisdiction over this appeal from the final protective order
because it did not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order.
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 81.009(c) (“A protective order rendered against a party in
a suit affecting the parent–child relationship may not be appealed until the time an
order providing for support of the child or possession of or access to the child
becomes a final, appealable order.”). We stated that unless Appellant or any party
desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court, on or before June 6, 2022, a
response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, this appeal could be dismissed
for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3.
Outcome: We have received no response and have confirmed that the petition in the
underlying suit affecting the parent–child relationship remains pending. Because there
is no final judgment or appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: