The opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-24-00403-CV
Venky Venkatraman, Appellant
v.
Board of Law Examiners, Appellee
FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-GN-24-000808, THE HONORABLE LAURIE EISERLOH, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Venky Venkatraman attempts to appeal from an order signed by the trial court on
May 21, 2024, that denied his request for an emergency hearing on his “Motion Asking to Set
Aside Defendant’s Order.” Appellee the Texas Board of Law Examiners has filed a motion to
dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, asserting that the order at issue is not a final order
or otherwise appealable interlocutory order. We agree with the Board and grant the motion
to dismiss.
No final order or judgment appears in the record. In civil cases, Texas courts of
appeals generally have jurisdiction over appeals only from final judgments. See Lehmann v.
Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§ 51.012. We also have jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory orders, but only if a
statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53
(Tex. 1998); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014. No statute provides this Court
with appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory order denying a request for an emergency
hearing on a motion seeking to set aside an order issued by appellee.
We therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal and accordingly dismiss the appeal
for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________
Thomas J. Baker, Justice
Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Theofanis
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: July 12, 2024
2