Christopher Michael Dupuy v. Heather Rene Williams

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 3, 2022
Docket14-19-00463-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Christopher Michael Dupuy v. Heather Rene Williams (Christopher Michael Dupuy v. Heather Rene Williams) 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
Christopher Michael Dupuy v. Heather Rene Williams, (Tex. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Motion Granted in Part; Denied in Part; and Order filed May 3, 2022

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-19-00463-CV ____________

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL DUPUY, Appellant

V.

HEATHER RENE WILLIAMS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 280th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019-18982

ORDER

Our opinion in this appeal issued December 2, 2021. The Supreme Court of Texas denied appellant’s petition for discretionary review on April 1, 2022. On April 4, 2022, appellee moved to remove appellant’s amended reply brief from this court’s website. Alternatively, appellee is not opposed to appellant redacting the exhibits from his brief.

Appellant’s reply brief filed July 12, 2021, disclosed sensitive data and was stricken. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.9(a)(3). Appellant filed an amended reply brief on July 14, 2021. Our review of the amended reply brief reveals there is sensitive data in the appendix to the brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.9(a)(3).

Documents attached to an appellate brief are not evidence to be considered by the appellate court, see WorldPeace v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 183 S.W.3d 451, 465 n.23 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied), and we provided appellant an opportunity to comply with Rule 9.9. We therefore do not provide another. Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion in part, strike the appendix to appellant’s amended reply brief filed July 14, 2021, and remove the stricken portion from this court’s website. The remainder of appellant’s reply brief appears not to contain sensitive data; accordingly, we deny the motion to remove the remainder of appellant’s amended reply brief from the court’s website.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Spain and Wilson.

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

Related

WorldPeace v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
183 S.W.3d 451 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Christopher Michael Dupuy v. Heather Rene Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-michael-dupuy-v-heather-rene-williams-texapp-2022.