Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2024

$17,060.00 U.S. Currency (Christopher M. Cassity) v. the State of Texas

$17,060.00 U.S. Currency (Christopher M. Cassity) v. the State of Texas
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided September 26, 2024

$17,060.00 U.S. Currency (Christopher M. Cassity) v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-24-00273-CV __________________ $17,060.00 U.S. CURRENCY (CHRISTOPHER M. CASSITY), Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23DCCV01239 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 12, 2024, Christopher M. Cassity filed a petition for a permissive appeal from an order denying what he styled as a “Special Appearance” in an asset forfeiture case. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.3.

The trial court denied Cassity’s Special Appearance after hearing arguments in a non-evidentiary hearing. An amended order signed by the trial court on July 30, 2024, grants permission to appeal the trial court’s denial and finds there is a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion regarding “[w]hether Plaintiff has diligently prosecuted its suit to prevent dismissal for violation of limitation of actions.” Cassity contends the State failed to exercise due diligence in perfecting service as a matter of law. The State argues a permissive appeal is neither ripe nor appropriate because untried contested fact issues predominate over legal issues.

The trial court denied the “Special Appearance” and could have determined that Cassity failed to establish that he is entitled to have his special appearance granted “as a matter of law.” Here, the question presented is whether the State exercised due diligence. That question is dependent upon the underlying facts and not on a legal issue on which there is a substantial difference of opinion. The facts should be developed in the trial court. Additionally, we cannot agree that granting permission to appeal materially advances this case.

We deny the petition for a permissive appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(l).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM Submitted on September 25, 2024 Opinion Delivered September 26, 2024 Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

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