Clayton Hatfield Prince v. Sherry Jolene Prince

Court of Appeals of Texas

Clayton Hatfield Prince v. Sherry Jolene Prince

DecidedAugust 31, 2001

Docket13-01-00254-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Clayton Hatfield Prince v. Sherry Jolene Prince (Clayton Hatfield Prince v. Sherry Jolene Prince) 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

Clayton Hatfield Prince v. Sherry Jolene Prince, (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-01-254-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

CLAYTON HATFIELD PRINCE , Appellant,

v.

SHERRY JOLENE PRINCE , Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

of Montgomery County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Rodriguez, and Castillo

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, CLAYTON HATFIELD PRINCE , perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 2 of Montgomery County, Texas, in cause number 00-05-02998-V . The clerk's record was filed on April 16, 2001 . The reporter's record was filed on May 2, 2001 . Appellant's brief was due on June 1, 2001 . To date, no appellate brief has been received.

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On July 23, 2001 , notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. To date, no response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant's failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court's notice, and appellant's failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. 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Do not publish.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 31^st day of August, 2001

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

NUMBER 13-01-254-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

CLAYTON HATFIELD PRINCE , Appellant,

v.

SHERRY JOLENE PRINCE , Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

of Montgomery County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Rodriguez, and Castillo

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, CLAYTON HATFIELD PRINCE , perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 2 of Montgomery County, Texas, in cause number 00-05-02998-V . The clerk's record was filed on April 16, 2001 . The reporter's record was filed on May 2, 2001 . Appellant's brief was due on June 1, 2001 . To date, no appellate brief has been received.

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On July 23, 2001 , notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. To date, no response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant's failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court's notice, and appellant's failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. 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 31^st day of August, 2001

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Clayton Hatfield Prince v. Sherry Jolene Prince, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayton-hatfield-prince-v-sherry-jolene-prince-texapp-2001.