SCHOOLCRAFT v. DEPT, FAM, PROT

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Phillips

    No. 06-22-00015-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 26, 2022)   Cited 3 times

    Generally, we have "jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments or certain specified interlocutory orders." Schoolcraft v. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., No. 06-05-00076-CV, 2005 WL 3487849, at *1 (Tex. App -Texarkana Dec. 22, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  2. Pharus Funding, LLC v. Solley

    No. 06-20-00090-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 29, 2021)   Cited 4 times
    In Solley, the Texarkana Court of Appeals explained that the scire facias procedure ensures the judgment debtor has proper notice of the judgment creditor's application to revive the dormant judgment.

    See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2005); Onstad v. Wright, 54 S.W.3d 799, 803 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. denied).Schoolcraft v. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., No. 06-05-00076-CV, 2005 WL 3487849, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Dec. 22, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.). Because the trial court's order denied only the issuance of a writ of scire facias and did not also dispose of Pharus's request to revive the dormant judgment, we notified Pharus of this potential defect in our jurisdiction and afforded it the opportunity to show this Court how it had jurisdiction over the appeal, notwithstanding the noted defect.

  3. Brenners v. Green

    No. 06-20-00034-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 16, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    See Onstad, 54 S.W.3d at 804; In re Onstad, 20 S.W.3d 731, 733 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, orig. proceeding).Schoolcraft v. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., No. 06-05-00076-CV, 2005 WL 3487849, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Dec. 22, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.); see Matassarin v. Odiorne, No. 04-01-00498-CV, 2001 WL 1479258, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 21, 2001, no pet.) (per curiam) ("An order for monetary sanctions rendered in connection with an underlying lawsuit is interlocutory if it does not dispose of all parties and claims in the lawsuit."); Kamel v. Advocare Int'l, L.P., No. 05-15-01295-CV, 2016 WL 836809, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 4, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("A sanctions order that does not dispose of all the parties and issues is neither an appealable final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order."). Our review of this record revealed no final judgment in this case.

  4. Ketterman v. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.

    Appellate case number: 01-12-00883-CV (Tex. App. May. 15, 2013)

    Therefore, although Ketterman has the right to appeal from the sanctions order, and although the sanctions order did not become final and appealable until the trial court rendered final judgment in the underlying proceeding, this appeal is a separate appeal of the sanctions order, not an appeal from the termination decree. See Onstad, 54 S.W.3d at 803-04; Schoolcraft v. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., No. 06-05-00076-CV, 2005 WL 3487849, at *2 n.2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Dec. 22, 2005, no pet.) (not designated for publication); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b), (c) (requiring notice of appeal be filed by party).