David Horton v. Ginny Byerley and Harris Byerley

Court of Appeals of Texas

David Horton v. Ginny Byerley and Harris Byerley

DecidedDecember 9, 2004

Docket13-02-00546-CV

StatusPublished

This text of David Horton v. Ginny Byerley and Harris Byerley (David Horton v. Ginny Byerley and Harris Byerley) 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

David Horton v. Ginny Byerley and Harris Byerley, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-02-546-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

DAVID HORTON, Appellant,

v.

GINNY BYERLEY AND HARRIS BYERLEY, Appellees.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Castillo, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, DAVID HORTON, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by County Court at Law No. 2 of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number 2000-CCL-539-B. The clerk’s record was filed on April 21, 2003. No reporter’s record was filed. Appellant’s brief was due on May 21, 2003. 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 27, 2004, 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 appellate brief has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, 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

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 9^th day of December, 2004

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

NUMBER 13-02-546-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

DAVID HORTON, Appellant,

v.

GINNY BYERLEY AND HARRIS BYERLEY, Appellees.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Castillo, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, DAVID HORTON, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by County Court at Law No. 2 of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number 2000-CCL-539-B. The clerk’s record was filed on April 21, 2003. No reporter’s record was filed. Appellant’s brief was due on May 21, 2003. 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 27, 2004, 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 appellate brief has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, 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

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 9^th day of December, 2004

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

David Horton v. Ginny Byerley and Harris Byerley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-horton-v-ginny-byerley-and-harris-byerley-texapp-2004.