In Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. 2001) the Court stated that "an order that expressly disposes of the entire case is not interlocutory merely because the record fails to show an adequate motion or other legal basis for the disposition." "Language that the plaintiff take nothing by his claims in the case, or that the case is dismissed, shows finality if there are no other claims by other parties . . . ." Id. at 205. In Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., the Court stated that "language that the plaintiff take nothing by his claims in the case . . . shows finality if there are no other claims by other parties." 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). In addition, "if a defendant moves for summary judgment on only one of [multiple] claims asserted by the plaintiff, but the trial court renders judgment that the plaintiff take nothing on all claims asserted, the judgment is final--erroneous, but final." Id. at 200. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment was a final judgment encompassing both the breach-of-contract and the professional negligence claims; but because the breach-of-contract claim was not addressed in Jacobs's motion, summary judgment on that claim was erroneous. Id. The supreme court concluded that when there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal "unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties." In Lehmann, the Supreme Court held that a review of the record may help determine whether a judgment disposes of all parties and claims and is therefore final, even though it should have been interlocutory because no sufficient basis for rendering a final judgment was presented. Id. at 205-06. A review of the record may also reveal that an order should not be regarded as final despite language in the order that might indicate otherwise. Id. at 206. A judgment is final if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record. Whether a judicial decree is a final judgment must be determined from its language and the record in the case. Id. The Order on Motion for Sanctions does not contain a mother hubbard clause. However, to determine whether the Order on Motion for Sanctions disposes of all pending claims and parties, it is necessary to look to the record in the case. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205-06.