Alexander v. Alexander
This text of 532 S.W.2d 150 (Alexander v. Alexander) 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.
Opinion
OPINION
Appellant’s amended motion for new trial, was overruled by the trial court on October 23, 1975.
Appellant caused transcript to be filed in this court on December 19, 1975. Such transcript reflects that no notice of appeal was given as required by Rule 353 TRCP.
Appellee has filed motion to dismiss the appeal because appellant failed to give any notice of appeal as required by Rule 353 TRCP (which was in effect at the time of judgment, order overruling amended motion for new trial, and the filing of transcript in this court).1
An appellate court acquires no jurisdiction of the appeal where notice of appeal has not been given as required by Rule 353 TRCP. Howe v. Howe, CCA (Eastland) Er.Ref., 223 S.W.2d 944; Thacker v. Thacker, CCA (Amarillo) NWH, 490 S.W.2d 234; Hilliard v. Hines, CCA (Tyler) NWH, 403 S.W.2d 442.
The motion is granted.
Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
532 S.W.2d 150, 1976 Tex. App. LEXIS 2374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-alexander-texapp-1976.