David Nuebauer v. the City of Alamo

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 27, 2002
• Docket: 13-02-00584-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                   NUMBER 13-02-584-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

DAVID NEUBAUER,                                                               Appellant,

                                                   v.

THE CITY OF ALAMO,                                                            Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

                        On appeal from the 275th District Court

                                  of Hidalgo County, Texas

___________________________________________________________________

                                   O P I N I O N

                   Before Justices Dorsey, Rodriguez, and Castillo

                                       Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, DAVID NEUBAUER, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-061-99-E.  Judgment in this cause was signed on April 29, 2002; however, upon motion filed by appellant in accordance with Rule 306a(5) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 4.2(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the trial court found June 11, 2002 to be the date appellant first either received notice or acquired actual knowledge that the judgment was signed.  No timely motion for new trial was filed.  Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on July 11, 2002, but was not filed until October 16, 2002. 

Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done.  Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court=s letter, the appeal would be dismissed.  Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, appellant has filed a response to appellee=s motion, and appellee has filed a reply to appellant=s response.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to timely perfect his appeal, and the motion and responses,  is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Appellee=s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 27^th day of November, 2002.