Dulce Maria Juarez Hutsell v. Michael Bryan Hutsell

Court of Appeals of Texas

Dulce Maria Juarez Hutsell v. Michael Bryan Hutsell

DecidedAugust 26, 2004

Docket13-04-00265-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Dulce Maria Juarez Hutsell v. Michael Bryan Hutsell (Dulce Maria Juarez Hutsell v. Michael Bryan Hutsell) 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

Dulce Maria Juarez Hutsell v. Michael Bryan Hutsell, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-04-265-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

DULCE MARIA JUAREZ HUTSELL, Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL BRYAN HUTSELL, Appellee.

On appeal from the 197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, DULCE MARIA JUAREZ HUTSELL, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number 2003-10-5203-C. No clerk’s record has been filed due to appellant’s failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. If the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record because the appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

On July 22, 2004, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed. To date, appellant has failed to cure the defect.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, this Court’s notice, and appellant’s failure to cure the defect, 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 26^th day of August, 2004.

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

NUMBER 13-04-265-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

DULCE MARIA JUAREZ HUTSELL, Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL BRYAN HUTSELL, Appellee.

On appeal from the 197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, DULCE MARIA JUAREZ HUTSELL, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number 2003-10-5203-C. No clerk’s record has been filed due to appellant’s failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. If the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record because the appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

On July 22, 2004, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed. To date, appellant has failed to cure the defect.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, this Court’s notice, and appellant’s failure to cure the defect, 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 26^th day of August, 2004.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dulce Maria Juarez Hutsell v. Michael Bryan Hutsell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dulce-maria-juarez-hutsell-v-michael-bryan-hutsell-texapp-2004.