Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2016

Sanadco Inc., a Texas Corporation Mahmoud Ahmed Isba Broadway Grocery, Inc. Shariz, Inc. Ruby & Sons Store, Inc. And Rubina Noorani v. Glenn Hegar, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Comptroller of Public Accounts Office of Comptroller of Public Accounts for the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas

Sanadco Inc., a Texas Corporation Mahmoud Ahmed Isba Broadway Grocery, Inc. Shariz, Inc. Ruby & Sons Store, Inc. And Rubina Noorani v. Glenn Hegar, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Comptroller of Public Accounts Office of Comptroller of Public Accounts for the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided September 14, 2016

Sanadco Inc., a Texas Corporation Mahmoud Ahmed Isba Broadway Grocery, Inc. Shariz, Inc. Ruby & Sons Store, Inc. And Rubina Noorani v. Glenn Hegar, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Comptroller of Public Accounts Office of Comptroller of Public Accounts for the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 14, 2016

NO. 03-15-00430-CV

Sanadco Inc., a Texas Corporation; Mahmoud Ahmed Isba; Broadway Grocery, Inc.; Shariz, Inc.; Ruby & Sons Store, Inc.; and Rubina Noorani, Appellants v. Glenn Hegar, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Comptroller of Public Accounts; Office of Comptroller of Public Accounts for The State of Texas; and Ken Paxton, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of The State of Texas, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND FIELD DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on April 27, 2015. Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellants shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.

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