Opinion
No. 02-05-052-CV
Delivered: August 18, 2005.
Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 of Wichita County.
Panel A: CAYCE, C.J.; WALKER, J.; and SAM J. DAY, J. (Retired, Sitting by Assignment).
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex.R.App.P. 47.4.
Appellant Lloyd Mark Sutton perfected this interlocutory appeal from the trial court's rulings granting a temporary injunction in favor of Lloyd P. Sutton, Daniel C. Sutton, Paula L. White, and Bob Day (collectively Appellees) and refusing his request for a temporary injunction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon 1997). On July 22, 2005, during the pendency of this appeal, the trial court signed a final judgment, disposing of all claims and all parties. See id. § 51.014(b). On July 28, 2005, in light of the trial court's final judgment, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss this interlocutory appeal as moot.
A justiciable controversy must exist between the parties at every stage of the legal proceedings, including the appeal. Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). Accordingly, if a controversy ceases to exist — "the issues presented are no longer `live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome" — the case becomes moot. Id. (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481, 102 S. Ct. 1181, 1183 (1982)); see also Isuani v. Manske-Sheffield Radiology Group, P.A., 802 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991). If a case becomes moot, the parties lose their standing to maintain their claims. Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 184.
The trial court's final judgment renders the issues presented in this interlocutory appeal moot. Accordingly, we grant Appellees' motion and dismiss the interlocutory appeal as moot.