Clay Earle, Individually and Lake Fork Drilling, Inc., D/B/A Clay Earle Water Well Drilling v. Preferred Pump and Equipment, L. P.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Clay Earle, Individually and Lake Fork Drilling, Inc., D/B/A Clay Earle Water Well Drilling v. Preferred Pump and Equipment, L. P.

DecidedMay 13, 2010

Docket06-09-00109-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Clay Earle, Individually and Lake Fork Drilling, Inc., D/B/A Clay Earle Water Well Drilling v. Preferred Pump and Equipment, L. P. (Clay Earle, Individually and Lake Fork Drilling, Inc., D/B/A Clay Earle Water Well Drilling v. Preferred Pump and Equipment, L. P.) 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

Clay Earle, Individually and Lake Fork Drilling, Inc., D/B/A Clay Earle Water Well Drilling v. Preferred Pump and Equipment, L. P., (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-09-00109-CV

CLAY EARLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND LAKE FORK DRILLING, INC., D/B/A CLAY EARLE WATER WELL DRILLING, Appellants

V.

PREFERRED PUMP AND EQUIPMENT, L.P., Appellee

On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court

Wood County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-469

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Clay Earle, individually, and Lake Fork Drilling, Inc., d/b/a Clay Earle Water Well Drilling, filed their notice of appeal December 1, 2009.

The clerk’s record was filed March 30, 2010. The reporter’s record was due to be filed on or before March 1, 2010, and has not been filed. When no reporter’s record had been filed by April 19, 2010, we contacted the appellants (whose attorney was permitted to withdraw from representation March 30, 2010, after providing requisite notice) by letter and informed them that, if we did not receive information that appellants were making a substantial and tangible effort to prosecute the appeal by showing, within ten days of the date of the letter, either a reasonable attempt to obtain the reporter’s record or by filing a brief based solely on the clerk’s record, the appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).

We have received no communication from the appellants. Pursuant to Rule 42.3(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: May 12, 2010

Date Decided: May 13, 2010

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

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-09-00109-CV

CLAY EARLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND LAKE FORK DRILLING, INC., D/B/A CLAY EARLE WATER WELL DRILLING, Appellants

V.

PREFERRED PUMP AND EQUIPMENT, L.P., Appellee

On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court

Wood County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-469

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Clay Earle, individually, and Lake Fork Drilling, Inc., d/b/a Clay Earle Water Well Drilling, filed their notice of appeal December 1, 2009.

The clerk’s record was filed March 30, 2010. The reporter’s record was due to be filed on or before March 1, 2010, and has not been filed. When no reporter’s record had been filed by April 19, 2010, we contacted the appellants (whose attorney was permitted to withdraw from representation March 30, 2010, after providing requisite notice) by letter and informed them that, if we did not receive information that appellants were making a substantial and tangible effort to prosecute the appeal by showing, within ten days of the date of the letter, either a reasonable attempt to obtain the reporter’s record or by filing a brief based solely on the clerk’s record, the appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).

We have received no communication from the appellants. Pursuant to Rule 42.3(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: May 12, 2010

Date Decided: May 13, 2010

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Clay Earle, Individually and Lake Fork Drilling, Inc., D/B/A Clay Earle Water Well Drilling v. Preferred Pump and Equipment, L. P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-earle-individually-and-lake-fork-drilling-inc-texapp-2010.