Aide Rodriguez v. Deborah Kowalczyk

Court of Appeals of Texas

Aide Rodriguez v. Deborah Kowalczyk

DecidedMay 20, 2004

Docket13-04-00044-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Aide Rodriguez v. Deborah Kowalczyk (Aide Rodriguez v. Deborah Kowalczyk) 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

Aide Rodriguez v. Deborah Kowalczyk, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-04-044-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

AIDE RODRIGUEZ, Appellant,

v.

DEBORAH KOWALCZYK, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Castillo

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, AIDE RODRIGUEZ, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by County Court at Law No. 2 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 00-60961-2. The clerk’s record was filed on March 10, 2004. The reporter’s record was filed on December 4, 2003. Appellant’s brief was due on April 9, 2004. To date, no appellate brief has been received.

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On April 20, 2004, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. To date, no response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court’s notice, and appellant’s failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 20th day of May, 2004

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

NUMBER 13-04-044-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

AIDE RODRIGUEZ, Appellant,

v.

DEBORAH KOWALCZYK, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Castillo

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, AIDE RODRIGUEZ, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by County Court at Law No. 2 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 00-60961-2. The clerk’s record was filed on March 10, 2004. The reporter’s record was filed on December 4, 2003. Appellant’s brief was due on April 9, 2004. To date, no appellate brief has been received.

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On April 20, 2004, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. To date, no response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court’s notice, and appellant’s failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 20th day of May, 2004

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Aide Rodriguez v. Deborah Kowalczyk, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aide-rodriguez-v-deborah-kowalczyk-texapp-2004.