Tullos v. Eaton Corp.
| Decision Date | 17 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C-4124,C-4124 |
| Citation | 695 S.W.2d 568 |
| Parties | Jimmy TULLOS, Petitioner, v. EATON CORPORATION, et al, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
George Chandler, Lufkin, Tullis & Jensen, Paul F. Jensen, Houston, for petitioner.
Evans & Kitchens, Joe Scott Evans and Hoagie L. Karels, Groveton, Zeleskey, Cornelius, Rogers, Hallmark & Borgfeld, Ralph M. Zeleskey, Lufkin, for respondents.
This is an attempted appeal from an order sustaining a plea of privilege. The order was signed after September 1, 1983. The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court. 688 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.App.1985). In a motion for rehearing, a jurisdictional point of error was raised for the first time.
The question of jurisdiction is fundamental and can be raised at any time. Cox v. Johnson, 638 S.W.2d 867, 868 (Tex.1982). The court of appeals has erred in assuming jurisdiction over the present matter because an order on a plea of privilege which is taken and perfected after September 1, 1983, is not a final, appealable judgment. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 1995, § 4 (Vernon Supp.1985). This court has jurisdiction to vacate the judgment of the court of appeals when it erroneously exercises its jurisdiction. Baker v. Hansen, 679 S.W.2d 480 (Tex.1984); McCauley v. Consolidated Underwriters, 157 Tex. 475, 304 S.W.2d 265 (1957).
Pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 483, we grant the application for writ of error, and without hearing oral argument, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and dismiss the appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilchrist v. Bandera Elec. Co-op., Inc.
...568, 568 (Tex.1985). It is reversible error for an intermediate appellate court to erroneously exercise its jurisdiction. See Tullos, 695 S.W.2d at 568-69. Therefore, we consider whether this cause is a final, appealable summary The Grahams, Zapata, and the Zapata truck driver pleaded in th......
-
Brice v. Denton
...107 S.W.3d 558, 583 (Tex.2003). "The question of jurisdiction is fundamental and can be raised at any time." Tullos v. Eaton Corp., 695 S.W.2d 568, 568 (Tex.1985) (per curiam); see In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 350 (Tex.2003); accord Blum v. Lanier, 997 S.W.2d 259, 261 (Tex.1999) (standing)......
-
Fain v. State
...Corp., 751 S.W.2d 525, 528 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1988, writ denied). The question of jurisdiction is fundamental, see Tullos v. Eaton Corp., 695 S.W.2d 568, 568 (Tex.1985), and a lack of jurisdiction may be questioned at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. Methodist Hospitals of Dalla......
-
Gainous v. Gainous, No. 01-04-00427-CV (Tex. App. 8/24/2006)
...v. Reiss, 118 S.W.3d 439, 443 (Tex. 2003). Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and may be raised at any time. Tullos v. Eaton Corp., 695 S.W.2d 568, 568 (Tex. 1985). No particular preservation or briefing requirements are imposed on a party raising jurisdictional challenges to a final......