Eva Jane Periman v. Mary Henke

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 4, 2004
Docket13-04-00192-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Eva Jane Periman v. Mary Henke (Eva Jane Periman v. Mary Henke) 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
Eva Jane Periman v. Mary Henke, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion



NUMBER 13-04-192-CV


COURT OF APPEALS


THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________


EVA JANE PERIMAN,                                                        Appellant,


v.


MARY HENKE,                                                                  Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________


On appeal from the County Court at Law

of San Patricio County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before Chief Justice Valdez, and Justices Hinojosa and Yañez

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam


         Appellant, EVA JANE PERIMAN, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law of San Patricio County, Texas, in cause number 7120. The clerk’s record was filed on June 28, 2004. No reporter’s record was filed. Appellant’s brief was due on July 28, 2004. To date, no proper 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 August 5, 2004, 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, 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 4th day of November, 2004



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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eva Jane Periman v. Mary Henke, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eva-jane-periman-v-mary-henke-texapp-2004.