Naaman v. Grider, No. 02-0784.
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam |
| Citation | 126 S.W.3d 73 |
| Parties | Adam NAAMAN, M.D., Petitioner, v. Rebecca Dunn GRIDER, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 02-0784. |
| Decision Date | 31 October 2003 |
v.
Rebecca Dunn GRIDER, Respondent.
Diana L. Faust, Brad M. Lamorgese, R. Brent Cooper, Robberson Michelle Elaine, Cooper & Scully, PC, Dallas, Marion Woodrow Kruse, Holly J. Harlow, Laura D. Hermer, Kruse Luccia & Evans, L.L.P., Houston, for Petitioner.
Jeffery B. Kaiser, Jeffrey B. Kaiser, P.C., Michael Lowenberg, John M. O'Quinn, O'Quinn, Laminack & Pirtle, Michael O'Brien, Houston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Four weeks after the trial court rendered a final judgment, it issued an order granting the defendant's motion for judgment but did not issue a new judgment. The court of appeals held that the time for the plaintiff to perfect appeal ran from the date of the later order.1 We disagree and therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and dismiss this appeal.
The jury reached a verdict in favor of defendant Adam Naaman on January 28, 2000. On February 25, Naaman filed a motion for judgment on the verdict and notified the plaintiff, Rebecca Dunn Grider, that the motion would be submitted without oral hearing on March 13. On March 9, Grider filed a motion for new trial and notified Naaman that her motion, too, would be submitted without oral hearing on March 13. On April 5, however, Grider's motion for new trial was set for oral hearing on May 15.
On May 3, while the two motions were still pending, the trial court signed a final judgment on the verdict, in effect granting Naaman's motion. The court nevertheless heard both Naaman's motion and Grider's motion on May 15. On June 1, the court denied Grider's motion for new trial and granted Naaman's motion for judgment. The court's order on the motions did not purport to modify the judgment that it had already signed, nor did the court sign a second judgment.
Grider filed her notice of appeal on August 25. The notice was timely2 only if, as the court of appeals held, the June 1 order was itself the final judgment,3 or if, as Grider argues, in the words of Rule 329b(h) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the order "modified, corrected, or reformed" the May 3 judgment "in any respect".4 Grider filed no motion for extension of time,5 and none can be implied, when she filed her notice of appeal more than fifteen days after it would have been due from the May 3 judgment.6 Also, Grider does not argue that the deadline for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean's Campin' Co. v. Hardsteen, No. 13-05-468-CV (Tex. App. 8/29/2008), No. 13-05-468-CV.
...the first, the first judgment is effective to start the time for appeal, and the second is void. Appellees further cite Naaman v. Grider, 126 S.W.3d 73, 74 (Tex. 2003) (an order that merely grants a motion for judgment is in no sense a judgment itself), and S. Tex. GMAC Real Estate v. Cohyc......
-
Grider v. Mike O'Brien, P.C., No. 01-07-00006-CV.
...judgment and, because her notice of appeal was untimely filed, dismissed Grider's appeal for want of jurisdiction. Naaman v. Grider, 126 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. 2003). Grider sued the law firms for negligence in connection with their appellate representation in her medical malpractice suit. Specifi......
-
In re Interest of A.P., NUMBER 13-19-00342-CV
...TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. If the appeal is not timely perfected, then we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. See Naaman v. Girder, 126 S.W.3d 73, 74 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam). Because more than twenty-one days have passed since the trial court signed the final order on which Mother ba......
-
Anh Phan v. CL Invs., 01-20-00551-CV
...sought). "An order that merely grants a motion for judgment is in no sense a judgment itself. It adjudicates nothing." Naaman v. Grider, 126 S.W.3d 73, 74 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam). An order that does not actually dispose of any claim or party because it lacks the "ordered, adjudged, and dec......
-
Dean's Campin' Co. v. Hardsteen, No. 13-05-468-CV (Tex. App. 8/29/2008), No. 13-05-468-CV.
...the first, the first judgment is effective to start the time for appeal, and the second is void. Appellees further cite Naaman v. Grider, 126 S.W.3d 73, 74 (Tex. 2003) (an order that merely grants a motion for judgment is in no sense a judgment itself), and S. Tex. GMAC Real Estate v. Cohyc......
-
Grider v. Mike O'Brien, P.C., No. 01-07-00006-CV.
...judgment and, because her notice of appeal was untimely filed, dismissed Grider's appeal for want of jurisdiction. Naaman v. Grider, 126 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. 2003). Grider sued the law firms for negligence in connection with their appellate representation in her medical malpractice suit. Specifi......
-
In re Interest of A.P., NUMBER 13-19-00342-CV
...TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. If the appeal is not timely perfected, then we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. See Naaman v. Girder, 126 S.W.3d 73, 74 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam). Because more than twenty-one days have passed since the trial court signed the final order on which Mother ba......
-
Anh Phan v. CL Invs., 01-20-00551-CV
...sought). "An order that merely grants a motion for judgment is in no sense a judgment itself. It adjudicates nothing." Naaman v. Grider, 126 S.W.3d 73, 74 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam). An order that does not actually dispose of any claim or party because it lacks the "ordered, adjudged, and dec......