Eugene X. Mercier, Individually v. Margaret Megan Ingle, Individually, and the Ingle Law Firm, L.L.C.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Eugene X. Mercier, Individually v. Margaret Megan Ingle, Individually, and the Ingle Law Firm, L.L.C.

DecidedMarch 26, 2009

Docket13-09-00019-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Eugene X. Mercier, Individually v. Margaret Megan Ingle, Individually, and the Ingle Law Firm, L.L.C. (Eugene X. Mercier, Individually v. Margaret Megan Ingle, Individually, and the Ingle Law Firm, L.L.C.) 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

Eugene X. Mercier, Individually v. Margaret Megan Ingle, Individually, and the Ingle Law Firm, L.L.C., (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-09-00019-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

EUGENE X. MERCIER, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellant,

v.

MARGARET MEGAN INGLE, INDIVIDUALLY,

AND THE INGLE LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Appellees.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Eugene X. Mercier, Individually, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 07-5198-A. Judgment in this cause was signed on October 9, 2008. A motion for new trial was filed on November 7, 2008. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant's notice of appeal was due on January 7, 2009, but was not filed until January 8, 2009.

On January 13, 2009, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court's letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant's failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant's failure to respond to this Court's notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a)(c).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 26th day of March, 2009.

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

NUMBER 13-09-00019-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

EUGENE X. MERCIER, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellant,

v.

MARGARET MEGAN INGLE, INDIVIDUALLY,

AND THE INGLE LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Appellees.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Eugene X. Mercier, Individually, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 07-5198-A. Judgment in this cause was signed on October 9, 2008. A motion for new trial was filed on November 7, 2008. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant's notice of appeal was due on January 7, 2009, but was not filed until January 8, 2009.

On January 13, 2009, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court's letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant's failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant's failure to respond to this Court's notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a)(c).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 26th day of March, 2009.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Eugene X. Mercier, Individually v. Margaret Megan Ingle, Individually, and the Ingle Law Firm, L.L.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eugene-x-mercier-individually-v-margaret-megan-ing-texapp-2009.