Dred W. Martin v. William T. Oliver, D.D.S. and William T. Oliver, D.D.S., Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Dred W. Martin v. William T. Oliver, D.D.S. and William T. Oliver, D.D.S., Inc.

DecidedApril 7, 2005

Docket13-04-00431-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Dred W. Martin v. William T. Oliver, D.D.S. and William T. Oliver, D.D.S., Inc. (Dred W. Martin v. William T. Oliver, D.D.S. and William T. Oliver, D.D.S., Inc.) 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

Dred W. Martin v. William T. Oliver, D.D.S. and William T. Oliver, D.D.S., Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-04-431-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

DRED W. MARTIN, Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM T. OLIVER, D.D.S. AND WILLIAM T.

OLIVER, D.D.S., INC., Appellees.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 2^nd 25th District Court

of Gonzales County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, DRED W. MARTIN, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 2^nd 25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas, in cause number 21,983. The clerk’s record was filed on August 16, 2004. The reporter’s record was filed on November 18,2004 and January 10, 2005. Appellant’s brief was due on February 9, 2005. 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 March 8, 2005, 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 response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court’s notice, and appellant’s failure to respond, 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 7^th day of April, 2005

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

NUMBER 13-04-431-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

DRED W. MARTIN, Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM T. OLIVER, D.D.S. AND WILLIAM T.

OLIVER, D.D.S., INC., Appellees.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 2^nd 25th District Court

of Gonzales County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, DRED W. MARTIN, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 2^nd 25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas, in cause number 21,983. The clerk’s record was filed on August 16, 2004. The reporter’s record was filed on November 18,2004 and January 10, 2005. Appellant’s brief was due on February 9, 2005. 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 March 8, 2005, 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 response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court’s notice, and appellant’s failure to respond, 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 7^th day of April, 2005

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dred W. Martin v. William T. Oliver, D.D.S. and William T. Oliver, D.D.S., Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dred-w-martin-v-william-t-oliver-dds-and-william-t-texapp-2005.