Shrestha v. Gonzalez, 21-1034

CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation647 S.W.3d 709 (Mem)
Parties Dristi SHRESTHA, Petitioner, v. Enya Hernandez GONZALEZ, Respondent
Docket Number21-1034
Decision Date01 July 2022

647 S.W.3d 709 (Mem)

Dristi SHRESTHA, Petitioner,
Enya Hernandez GONZALEZ, Respondent

No. 21-1034

Supreme Court of Texas.


Thomas A. Culpepper, Dallas, Wade C. Crosnoe, for Respondent.

Mark A. Ticer, Jennifer W. Johnson, Dallas, for Petitioner.


The court of appeals’ opinion failed to advise the parties of the basic reasons for its decision to refuse this permissive appeal as Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 requires. See Indus. Specialists v. Blanchard Refin. Co. ––– S.W.3d ––––, –––– – ––––, 2022 WL 2082236, at *6-7 (Tex. 2022) (plurality op.); id. at –––– – ––––, 2022 WL 2082236 at *10-13 ( BUSBY , J., dissenting). Notwithstanding the court of appeals’ refusal to accept the appeal, this Court has jurisdiction to review the trial court's interlocutory order on the merits. See Indus. Specialists , ––– S.W.3d at –––– n.15, 2022 WL 2082236, at *7 n.15 ; Sabre Travel Int'l, Ltd. v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG , 567 S.W.3d 725, 733-34 (Tex. 2019). Exercising this Court's discretion under Texas Government Code section 22.001(a) and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 56.1, however, we deny the petition for review.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT