Finality and/or Finality

Originally published by David Coale.

The trial court’s judgment concluded: “All relief not granted herein is denied. This is a final judgment.” It later issued a supplemental order confirming that it meant this judgment to be final.

The court of appeals saw things differently: “After examining the record, the court of appeals concluded the November 2016 summary judgment was interlocutory, not final, because claims against Timothy were not properly addressed. The court of appeals therefore dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.” (citations omitted).

The supreme court reversed: “We have previously held that a judgment is final either if “’it actually disposes of every pending claim and party’ or ‘it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.’The court of appeals mistakenly read Lehmann to require record evidence of finality and an unequivocal expression of finality. But this approach ‘would distill Lehmann’s joint tests into a simple rule: when there has not been
a conventional trial on the merits, a court must look to the record to determine whether the
judgment is final. That is not Lehmann’s rule.’” (citations omitted, emphasis in original).

Bella Palma LLC v. Young, No. 19-0204 (April 17, 2020) (per curiam).

The post Finality and/or Finality appeared first on 600 Hemphill.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/356lJ0w
via Abogado Aly Website