Charles A. Cross and Cathleen Cross Sexton v. H. W. Beutel, Jr., M. D.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 10, 2021
Docket05-91-01700-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Charles A. Cross and Cathleen Cross Sexton v. H. W. Beutel, Jr., M. D. (Charles A. Cross and Cathleen Cross Sexton v. H. W. Beutel, Jr., M. D.) 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
Charles A. Cross and Cathleen Cross Sexton v. H. W. Beutel, Jr., M. D., (Tex. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Dismissed and Opinion Filed May 10, 2021

In the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-91-01700-CV

CHARLES A. CROSS AND CATHLEEN CROSS SEXTON, Appellants V. H. W. BEUTEL, JR., M. D., Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 88-079-J

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Carlyle We reinstate this appeal. This case was abated in 1992 due to bankruptcy. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. The court has conducted an independent review of the federal

Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system; however, nothing on

that system indicates that a bankruptcy case was still pending.

We then notified the parties by letter, requesting they inform the court of the

status of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the failure to respond

would result in the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 42.3(b),

(c). The letters to appellants (who were appearing pro se at the time the case was

abated) were returned because the addresses were no longer current, despite the obligation to provide the court with current contact information. See TEX. R. APP. P.

9.1(b); 5th Tex. App. (Dallas) Loc. R. 2. Our attempts to contact appellants by phone

were likewise unsuccessful.

Because we gave the parties an opportunity to show why we should not

dismiss this case for want of prosecution and because no one has responded, we

dismiss the appeal. See id. 42.3(b), (c); see Brewer v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2002 WL

31312990, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 16, 2002, no writ) (per curiam) (not

designated for publication).

/Cory L. Carlyle// 911700f.p05 CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE

–2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

CHARLES A. CROSS AND On Appeal from the 191st Judicial CATHLEEN CROSS SEXTON, District Court, Dallas County, Texas Appellants Trial Court Cause No. 88-079-J. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. No. 05-91-01700-CV V. Justices Schenck and Reichek participating. H. W. BEUTEL, JR., M. D., Appellee

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 10th day of May, 2021.

–3–

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Charles A. Cross and Cathleen Cross Sexton v. H. W. Beutel, Jr., M. D., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-a-cross-and-cathleen-cross-sexton-v-h-w-beutel-jr-m-d-texapp-2021.