at *13-*14. We overrule Palavan’s third and fifth issues. Declaratory Judgment Action In his fourth issue, Palavan argues the county court improperly granted summary judgment on McCulley and TBW Development’s declaratory judgment action. Even if we agreed with Palavan, however, he has failed to establish how he has been injured by a dismissal of McCulley and TBW Development’s declaratory judgment action. See CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. Potter, No. 01-11-00650-CV, 2013 WL 269091, at *17 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 24, 2013, pet. denied) (mem.op.) (“In order to obtain reversal on appeal, the appellant must show that it suffered harm as a result of an alleged error.”). We overrule Palavan’s fourth issue. Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 . See Palavan (Tex.2008) (<HOLDING>); Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 58
holding that what constitutes a criminal instrument is determined by both its design or adaptation and its intended use holding nature of motion is determined by its substance not its title holding that because pleadings are to be liberally construed if the nature of the motion is clear from its substance an improper caption is not fatal holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance holding that the economic substance of a transaction rather than its form determines its tax treatment