Ashley, Deloris v. Van Huseman & Paul Pearson, III

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ashley, Deloris v. Van Huseman & Paul Pearson, III

DecidedApril 20, 2000

Docket13-00-00102-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Ashley, Deloris v. Van Huseman & Paul Pearson, III (Ashley, Deloris v. Van Huseman & Paul Pearson, III) 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

Ashley, Deloris v. Van Huseman & Paul Pearson, III, (Tex. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-00-102-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

DELORIS ASHLEY, Appellant,

v.

PAUL C. PEARSON III AND VAN HUSEMAN,

INDEPENDENT EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE

OF DAVID YANCEY WHITE, DECEASED, Appellees.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Chavez

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, DELORIS ASHLEY, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 4 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 37-957-4A. No clerk's record has been filed due to appellant's failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record.

If the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk's record because the appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

On March 17, 2000, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant's failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record, this Court's notice, appellant's failure to respond, and appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 20^th day of April, 2000

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

NUMBER 13-00-102-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

DELORIS ASHLEY, Appellant,

v.

PAUL C. PEARSON III AND VAN HUSEMAN,

INDEPENDENT EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE

OF DAVID YANCEY WHITE, DECEASED, Appellees.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Chavez

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, DELORIS ASHLEY, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 4 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 37-957-4A. No clerk's record has been filed due to appellant's failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record.

If the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk's record because the appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

On March 17, 2000, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant's failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record, this Court's notice, appellant's failure to respond, and appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 20^th day of April, 2000

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ashley, Deloris v. Van Huseman & Paul Pearson, III, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashley-deloris-v-van-huseman-paul-pearson-iii-texapp-2000.