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.