Gaskill v. Sneaky Enterprises, Inc., 2-98-367-CV
| Decision Date | 17 June 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-98-367-CV,2-98-367-CV |
| Citation | 997 S.W.2d 296 |
| Parties | (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999) SHERI GASKILL, APPELLANT v. SNEAKY ENTERPRISES, INC.; SNEAKY PETE'S RESTAURANT AND CLUB, INC.; AND SNEAKY PETE'S BEVERAGE, INC., APPELLEES |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
PANEL B: DAY, RICHARDS, AND BRIGHAM, JJ.
A final judgment from the small claims court may be appealed to the county court for a trial de novo. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 28.053(b) (Vernon 1988). In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether we have jurisdiction over an appeal from the county court's final judgment after such a trial de novo. We hold that we do not.
Appellant Sheri Gaskill hired appellee Sneaky Pete's Restaurant to cater her wedding reception. When she was dissatisfied with the food and service, she filed a pro se suit in small claims court against Sneaky Pete's for breach of contract. About two months later, Gaskill hired a lawyer to represent her, who entered an appearance as her attorney of record. Gaskill, through her attorney, then filed an amended petition alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and requesting attorney's fees. The trial court dismissed Gaskill's suit because the total claim exceeded the jurisdictional limits of the small claims court. In a trial de novo in the county court, the county court granted summary judgment in favor of Sneaky Pete's because Gaskill's claim under the DTPA divested the small claims court, and derivatively the county court, of subject-matter jurisdiction. Gaskill attempts to appeal the county court's judgment.
An appeal from a small claims court judgment is to a county court at novo proceeding. See id. "Judgment of the county court or county court at law on the appeal is final." Id. 28.053(d). Before 1998, the law was uniform that a judgment from a county court in a de novo appeal from the small claims court could be appealed to the court of appeals. Se Galil Moving & Storage, Inc. v. McGregor, 928 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ); 31 JEREMY C. WICKER, TEXAS PRACTICE; CIVIL TRIAL & APPELLATE PROCEDURE 401 (1985). But in 1998, the First Court of Appeals held that there is no appeal to the court of appeals from a judgment of the county court after a trial de novo appeal from the small claims court. Davis v. Covert, 983 S.W.2d 301, 302 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (en banc). That court reasoned that "final" means there is no further appeal. Id. Although the court recognized that section 51.012 of the Civil Practice and Remedies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sultan v. Mathew
...2000, pet. dism'd w.o.j.); Lederman v. Rowe, 3 S.W.3d 254, 256 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, no pet.); Gaskill v. Sneaky Enters., Inc., 997 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied); Automania, L.L.C. v. May, No. 03-03-00592-CV, 2004 WL 852275 (Tex.App.-Austin April 22, 2004, no pet.) ......
-
Fox v. State
... ... Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex.1998) ... ...
-
The Woodlands Plumbing Co. v. Rodgers
...Williamson, 28 S.W.3d at 731; Lederman v. Rowe, 3 S.W.3d 254, 256 (Tex. App. Waco 1999, no pet.); Gaskill v. Sneaky Enters., Inc., 997 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied); Davis, 983 S.W.2d at 302. When a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts need not reach for outsi......
-
Howell Aviation Services v. Aerial Ads
...no pet. h.) (per curiam); Lederman v. Rowe, 3 S.W.3d 254, 256 (Tex. App.-Waco 1999, no pet.); Gaskill v. Sneaky Enters., Inc., 997 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied). Each of our sister courts that have addressed this issue agree section 28.053(d) of the government cod......