Luccia v. City of Hous.

6 Citing cases

  1. In re Ward

    No. 02-24-00330-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 27, 2024)

    Because the trial court's order does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 168, the Estate's petition "does not meet the strict jurisdictional requirements" for a permissive appeal. See id.; see also Luccia v. City of Houston, No. 01-17-00378-CV, 2017 WL 2471107, at *2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 8, 2017, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.)

  2. Mack v. Pittard

    No. 04-24-00201-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 5, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    , Mack and Hall cite no authority holding that their own compliance with Rule 283 permits us to overlook the Rule 168 deficiency in the trial court's order, and we have found no such authority See Duke Inc v Fuentes, 672 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Tex 2023) (Busby, J, concur ring in denial of petition for review) (noting that in light of 2023 amendments to Section 51.014, "the courts of appeals should be inclined to review properly certified interlocutory appeals") (emphasis added). Because the trial court's order does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 168, Mack and Hall's petition "does not meet the strict jurisdictional requirements" for a permissive appeal. See Ace Am., 2017 WL 929485, at *1-2; see also Luccia v. City of Houston, No. 01-17-00378-CV, 2017 WL 2471107, at *2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 8, 2017, no pet.) (per curiam)

  3. Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Harris Cnty. Mun. Util. Dist. No. 400

    No. 09-21-00326-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 30, 2021)

    Borowski v. Ayers, 432 S.W.3d 344, 347 (Tex. App.-Waco 2013, no pet.); see also Luccia v. City of Houston, No. 01-17-00378-CV, 2017 Tex.App. LEXIS 5273, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 8, 2017, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem op.) ("The petition fails to meet these requirements because, among other problems, the order appealed from [] does not explain why it denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, and though it identified four controlling questions of law, the trial court did not rule on any of them."); McCroskey v. Happy State Bank, No. 07-14-00027-CV, 2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 2382, at **3-4 (Tex. App.-Amarillo Feb. 28, 2014, no pet.)

  4. Orion Marine Constr., Inc. v. Cepeda

    NO. 01-18-00323-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2018)   Cited 7 times

    See Borowski, 432 S.W.3d at 347-48; see, e.g., Eagle Gun Range v. Bancalari, 495 S.W.3d 887, 889 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, no pet.) (denial of motion to dismiss without comment was not substantive ruling); City of San Antonio v. Tommy Harral Constr., 486 S.W.3d 77, 81-82 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, no pet.) (denial of motion for partial summary judgment that identified controlling question of law but did not state basis for denial was not substantive ruling).Accord Dafashy v. Jimenez, No. 01-17-00767-CV, 2017 WL 6001526, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 5, 2017, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Luccia v. City of Houston, No. 01-17-00378-CV, 2017 WL 2471107, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 8, 2017, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Vestalia, Ltd. v. Taylor-Watson, No. 01-15-00332-CV, 2015 WL 3799505, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 18, 2015, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Great Am. E&S Ins. Co. v. Lapolla Indus., No. 01-14-00372-CV, 2014 WL 2895770, at *2 & n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 24, 2014, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Further, a party cannot seek to appeal from an interlocutory order on a ground or issue that differs from the basis on which the trial court ruled. Tommy Harral, 486 S.W.3d at 83-84.

  5. Dafashy v. Jimenez

    NO. 01-17-00767-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 5, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    It is well settled in Texas that an order does not satisfy the first statutory requirement if the order merely identifies a controlling issue of law but fails to rule on it. See, e.g., Luccia v. City of Houston, No. 01-17-00378-CV, 2017 WL 2471107, at *1 (Tex. App. June 8, 2017) (finding order that set forth four controlling issues insufficient for these purposes when court denied summary judgment without discussion); Vestalia, Ltd. v. Taylor-Watson, et al., No. 01-15-00332-CV, 2015 WL 3799505, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 18, 2015, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (similar); Great Am. E & S Ins. Co. v. Lapolla Indus., Inc., No. 01-14-00372-CV, 2014 WL 2895770, at *2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 24, 2014, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (same). "'When a trial court in its order on motion for summary judgment provides no basis for its denial, the trial court fails to make [a] substantive ruling on the controlling question of law sought to be appealed.'"

  6. Luccia v. City of Hous.

    NO. 01-17-00390-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 11, 2017)

    On June 8, 2017, this Court denied the parties' related agreed joint petition for permissive appeal. See Luccia and Powell v. City of Houston, Texas, No. 01-17-00378-CV, 2017 WL 2471107, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 8, 2017, no pet. h.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we grant the parties' joint motion and dismiss these appeals.