Ernesto P. Hinojosa, Jr. v. Billy Parks, Individually and in His Official Capacity

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ernesto P. Hinojosa, Jr. v. Billy Parks, Individually and in His Official Capacity

DecidedNovember 6, 2003

Docket13-03-00097-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Ernesto P. Hinojosa, Jr. v. Billy Parks, Individually and in His Official Capacity (Ernesto P. Hinojosa, Jr. v. Billy Parks, Individually and in His Official Capacity) 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

Ernesto P. Hinojosa, Jr. v. Billy Parks, Individually and in His Official Capacity, (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-03-097-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

ERNESTO P. HINOJOSA, JR., Appellant,

v.

BILLY PARKS, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN

HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Castillo, and Garza

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, ERNESTO P. HINOJOSA, JR., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas, in cause number S-01-5628CV-A. The clerk's record was filed on March 10, 2003. No reporter's record was filed. Appellant's brief was due on May 20, 2003. 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 September 26, 2003, 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

Opinion delivered and filed

this 6th day of November, 2003

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

NUMBER 13-03-097-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

ERNESTO P. HINOJOSA, JR., Appellant,

v.

BILLY PARKS, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN

HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Castillo, and Garza

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, ERNESTO P. HINOJOSA, JR., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas, in cause number S-01-5628CV-A. The clerk's record was filed on March 10, 2003. No reporter's record was filed. Appellant's brief was due on May 20, 2003. 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 September 26, 2003, 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

Opinion delivered and filed

this 6th day of November, 2003

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ernesto P. Hinojosa, Jr. v. Billy Parks, Individually and in His Official Capacity, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernesto-p-hinojosa-jr-v-billy-parks-individually-a-texapp-2003.