Adrianne James v. Javier Lascar and Brittany Peacock

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 1, 2022
Docket03-21-00087-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Adrianne James v. Javier Lascar and Brittany Peacock (Adrianne James v. Javier Lascar and Brittany Peacock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adrianne James v. Javier Lascar and Brittany Peacock, (Tex. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00087-CV

Adrianne James, Appellant

v.

Javier Lascar and Brittany Peacock, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C-1-CV-20-005714, THE HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a forcible-detainer action. Pursuant to Marshall

v. Housing Authority of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2006), a court of

appeals only maintains jurisdiction over an appeal of a forcible detainer action if there remains a

live controversy between the parties over the right to “current, actual possession” of the property.

The Court was unable to determine, based on its review of the record, whether it could exercise

jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, on January 19, 2022, the Court asked Appellant to

respond and explain how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over the cause. In addition, we

cautioned that failure to timely respond might result in dismissal of this appeal. Appellant’s

response was due on January 31, 2022. To date, Appellant has not filed a response. We

therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c) (allowing

dismissal for failure to comply with any notice requesting a response); Ugarte v. Eureka Holdings Acquisitions, LP, No. 03-20-00083-CV, 2021 WL 2064902, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin

May 21, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing forcible-detainer appeal where appellant failed to

respond to notice requesting clarification of basis of jurisdiction).

__________________________________________ Edward Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: March 1, 2022

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Marshall v. Housing Authority of San Antonio
198 S.W.3d 782 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Adrianne James v. Javier Lascar and Brittany Peacock, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adrianne-james-v-javier-lascar-and-brittany-peacock-texapp-2022.