Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jobe v. Lapidus

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)

Decided February 15, 1994No. 05-93-01509-CVPublished

1DissentMcGARRY, Chief Justice

I respectfully dissent. This Court should assert jurisdiction in this case because the appeal was timely perfected.

I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the February 9, 1993 summary judgment was final for purposes of appeal. A judgment is not final unless it disposes of all parties and all issues in a case. Felderoff v. Knauf, 819 S.W.2d 110, 111 (Tex.1991) (per curiam). A final judgment disposes of all of the issues involved so that no future action by the trial court will be necessary in order to settle and determine the entire controversy. K & S Interests, Inc. v. Texas Am.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Remington Arms Co., Inc. v. CaldwellTexas Supreme Court · 1993
  2. New York Underwriters Insurance Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1993
  3. K & S Interests, Inc. v. Texas American Bank/Dallas, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1988
  4. Felderhoff v. KnaufTexas Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Lindley v. Flores, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1984

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API