and ordering the trial court to render judgment in favor of the City on the verdict interferes with the jurisdiction of the trial court and is advisory and improper. An issue may be moot if it becomes impossible for the court to grant effectual relief. In re H & R Block Fin. Advisors, Inc., 262 S.W.Bd 896, 900 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding). “Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies.” Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex.1999). The mootness doctrine prevents courts from rendering advisory opinions, which lie outside the jurisdiction conferred on the courts by the Texas Constitution. Id.; In re H & R Block, 262 S.W.3d at 900; see also Valley Baptist Med. Or. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex.2000) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Here, the trial court’s order granting a new
holding that a remand order entered by a magistrate judge was beyond his statutory authority and concluding that review was proper because the court of appeals was not reviewing the merits of the remand order itself holding that the appellate court must accept appeals referees finding of untimeliness and affirm unemployment appeals commissions order dismissing claimants appeal as untimely where it appeared that claimant did not appeal decision within twenty days and did not dispute that notice of appeal was untimely holding that the trial court on remand erred when it adopted a new theory of damages contrary to the order of the court of appeals holding that appeal of order became moot when order was complied with and court of appeals was notified and that court of appeals erred in issuing advisory opinion on merits of appeal holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction