Don Earl Hutto v. City of Cleburne

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 9, 2010
Docket11-10-00195-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Don Earl Hutto v. City of Cleburne (Don Earl Hutto v. City of Cleburne) 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
Don Earl Hutto v. City of Cleburne, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Opinion filed September 9, 2010

                                                                       In The

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                         No. 11-10-00195-CV

                                    DON EARL HUTTO, Appellant

                                                             V.

                            CITY OF CLEBURNE ET AL, Appellees

                                   On Appeal from the 18th District Court

                                                          Johnson County, Texas

                                                Trial Court Cause No. T200800104

                                            M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            The trial court signed its default judgment on June 18, 2009.  One year later on June 18, 2010, Don Earl Hutto filed his pro se notice of appeal.  We dismiss.

            On August 18, 2010, the clerk of this court wrote the parties advising them that it appeared an appeal had not been timely perfected and requesting that Hutto respond showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  Hutto has responded to our August 18 letter.  In his response, Hutto states that he had no notice of the June 2009 hearing and that he was financially unable to hire an attorney.  Hutto argues the merits of his claims but does not establish how this court has jurisdiction over his appeal.

            Hutto has not complied with the provisions of Tex. R. App. P. 25.1, 26.1, or 26.3 and, therefore, has not properly perfected an appeal.  The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

                                                                                    PER CURIAM

September 9, 2010

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Don Earl Hutto v. City of Cleburne, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/don-earl-hutto-v-city-of-cleburne-texapp-2010.