Delhi Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Montgomery

Court of Appeals of Texas

Delhi Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Montgomery

626 S.W.2d 617

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 31, 1981

DocketNo. 12-81-0180-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 626 S.W.2d 617 (Delhi Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Montgomery) 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

Delhi Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Montgomery, 626 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On December 10, 1981, pursuant to Rule 387, Tex.R.Civ.P., we advised appellant that its case would be dismissed unless grounds were shown for continuing this appeal. See 610 S.W.2d 210. Our reason for dismissing the appeal, absent some ground for going forward, was based on the fact that appellant filed its motion to extend time for filing the transcript and the statement of facts beyond the time prescribed by Rule 21c, Tex.R.Civ.P. We denied appellant’s motion for extension of time. Consequently, appellant is before this court without a record.

Appellant’s ground for continuing the appeal relates to the reasons why it failed to meet the time deadline of Rule 21c when filing its motion for extension of time to file the record.¹ We do not think this constitutes grounds for continuing the appeal. Moreover, appellant has not cited us any error in the case we could pass on absent a transcript or statement of facts.

Accordingly, appellant’s appeal is dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On December 10, 1981, pursuant to Rule 387, Tex.R.Civ.P., we advised appellant that its case would be dismissed unless grounds were shown for continuing this appeal. See 610 S.W.2d 210. Our reason for dismissing the appeal, absent some ground for going forward, was based on the fact that appellant filed its motion to extend time for filing the transcript and the statement of facts beyond the time prescribed by Rule 21c, Tex.R.Civ.P. We denied appellant’s motion for extension of time. Consequently, appellant is before this court without a record.

Appellant’s ground for continuing the appeal relates to the reasons why it failed to meet the time deadline of Rule 21c when filing its motion for extension of time to file the record.¹ We do not think this constitutes grounds for continuing the appeal. Moreover, appellant has not cited us any error in the case we could pass on absent a transcript or statement of facts.

Accordingly, appellant’s appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

626 S.W.2d 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delhi-gas-pipe-line-corp-v-montgomery-texapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack