Deirdre Murphy Alameddine v. Jihad Alameddine

Court of Appeals of Texas

Deirdre Murphy Alameddine v. Jihad Alameddine

DecidedDecember 7, 2005

Docket04-05-00632-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Deirdre Murphy Alameddine v. Jihad Alameddine (Deirdre Murphy Alameddine v. Jihad Alameddine) 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

Deirdre Murphy Alameddine v. Jihad Alameddine, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-05-00632-CV

Deirdre Murphy ALAMEDDINE,

Appellant

v.

Jihad ALAMEDDINE,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2004-CI-18273

Honorable Carol H. Knight-Sheen, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2005

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

The clerk’s record was due to be filed in this appeal on October 3, 2005. On that date, the trial court clerk filed a notification of late record stating that the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee for the preparation of the clerk’s record, and appellant had failed to pay the fee. Our records reflected that the appellant filed an affidavit of inability to pay the costs of the appeal; however, the trial court timely sustained the contest to the affidavit and ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.

On October 7, 2005, we ordered appellant to provide proof that the clerk’s fee had been paid or arrangements had been made to pay the clerk’s fee. On October 17, 2005, appellant responded with an advisory that a hearing had been set on her motion for new trial. In view of the pending hearing, we extended the date for appellant to respond to our order of October 7, 2005, and ordered appellant to respond no later than November 7, 2005. Our order stated that if appellant failed to respond within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

On October 31, 2005, a copy of the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for new trial was filed in this court. Appellant has not responded to our order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-05-00632-CV

Deirdre Murphy ALAMEDDINE,

Appellant

v.

Jihad ALAMEDDINE,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2004-CI-18273

Honorable Carol H. Knight-Sheen, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2005

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

The clerk’s record was due to be filed in this appeal on October 3, 2005. On that date, the trial court clerk filed a notification of late record stating that the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee for the preparation of the clerk’s record, and appellant had failed to pay the fee. Our records reflected that the appellant filed an affidavit of inability to pay the costs of the appeal; however, the trial court timely sustained the contest to the affidavit and ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.

On October 7, 2005, we ordered appellant to provide proof that the clerk’s fee had been paid or arrangements had been made to pay the clerk’s fee. On October 17, 2005, appellant responded with an advisory that a hearing had been set on her motion for new trial. In view of the pending hearing, we extended the date for appellant to respond to our order of October 7, 2005, and ordered appellant to respond no later than November 7, 2005. Our order stated that if appellant failed to respond within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

On October 31, 2005, a copy of the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for new trial was filed in this court. Appellant has not responded to our order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Deirdre Murphy Alameddine v. Jihad Alameddine, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deirdre-murphy-alameddine-v-jihad-alameddine-texapp-2005.