Cody Howard v. Lacy Kimball - Lawsuit Dismissed
Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District, dismissed the appeal in Cody Howard v. Lacy Kimball for want of jurisdiction. The court found no final, appealable judgment was rendered by the trial court, and the matter is to continue to trial.
What changed
The Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District, has dismissed the appeal in Cody Howard v. Lacy Kimball, individually and d/b/a Lacy Kimball Law, under docket number 07-24-00388-CV. The dismissal is due to a want of jurisdiction, as the appellate court determined that the trial court's amended orders did not constitute a final, appealable judgment. The court noted that the trial court explicitly stated the matter would continue to trial, indicating no final disposition of all claims and parties.
This ruling means the underlying lawsuit for legal malpractice will proceed in the trial court. For legal professionals and parties involved in litigation, this emphasizes the critical importance of ensuring that any order intended to be final and appealable clearly and unequivocally disposes of all claims and parties. Failure to do so can result in dismissal of an appeal, as occurred in this case, requiring further proceedings at the trial level.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Cody Howard v. Lacy Kimball, Individually and D/B/A Lacy Kimball Law
Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 07-24-00388-CV
- Nature of Suit: Miscellaneous/other civil
Disposition: Dismissed-Want of Jurisdiction
Disposition
Dismissed-Want of Jurisdiction
Lead Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-24-00388-CV
CODY HOWARD, APPELLANT
V.
LACY KIMBALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A LACY KIMBALL LAW, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 43rd District Court
Parker County, Texas1
Trial Court No. CV24-0589, Honorable Craig Towson, Presiding
March 11, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant, Cody Howard, appeals from an order on a plea to the jurisdiction filed
by Appellee, Lacy Kimball, Individually and d/b/a Lacy Kimball Law. Because there is no
final, appealable judgment, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
1 This appeal was originally filed in the Second Court of Appeals and was transferred to this Court
by a docket-equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001. In the
event of any conflict, we apply the transferor court’s case law. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
BACKGROUND
Howard and CMH Group, LLC sued Kimball for legal malpractice. Kimball
answered and filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss under Rule 91a of
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. On June 24, 2024, the trial court signed an order
that purported to overrule the plea but also stated the suit was “dismissed.” Howard
appealed.
On January 15, 2025, we abated the appeal and remanded the cause to the trial
court for clarification of whether the trial court intended to render a final judgment. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 27.2. On remand, the trial court signed amended orders that became a
part of a supplemental clerk’s record. The orders state Kimball’s motions to dismiss and
plea to the jurisdiction are denied in all respects “and this matter shall continue to trial.”
Kimball did not file a notice of appeal from any order denying her requested relief.
ANALYSIS
Our jurisdiction generally extends only to final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con
Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When an order is signed without a conventional
trial on the merits, it is not considered a final judgment unless it actually disposes of every
pending claim and party or it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all
claims and parties. Id. at 205.
The amended orders now in the record make clear that the trial court intended to
retain jurisdiction and did not intend rendition of a final judgment. The trial court directed
that the matter shall continue to trial. Because there is no final judgment, we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal.
2
CONCLUSION
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Nothing in this dismissal order
should be construed as a comment on the merits of any matters that may remain pending
in the trial court.
Per Curiam
3
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get State Courts alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Texas Court of Appeals publishes new changes.