Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2002

William C. Cocke, Individually and in the Right of Seashore Properties, Inc. v....

William C. Cocke, Individually and in the Right of Seashore Properties, Inc. v....
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided July 25, 2002

William C. Cocke, Individually and in the Right of Seashore Properties, Inc. v....

Opinion













NUMBER 13-01-732-CV



COURT OF APPEALS



THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________



WILLIAM C. COCKE, INDIVIDUALLY

AND IN THE RIGHT OF SEASHORE PROPERTIES, INC., Appellant,



v.


E. PAUL SCHEXNAILDER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF SEASHORE

PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL., Appellees.

____________________________________________________________________



On appeal from the 28th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________



O P I N I O N



Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Yanez

Opinion



Appellant, WILLIAM C. COCKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THE RIGHT OF SEASHORE PROPERTIES, INC., attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered by the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause no. 96-04721-A. The clerk's record was received on January 25, 2002, and the supplemental clerk's record was received on April 3, 2002.

Upon review of the clerk's record, it appeared that the order from this appeal was taken was not a final, appealable order. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant has filed a response in which he requests that this Court adjudicate that the underlying order is not final, dismiss the appeal, and remand the case to the trial court.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's response, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.



Opinion delivered and filed this

the 25th day of July, 2002.



Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.