Felipe Mendoza-Brito v. Wade Allen Mathews D/B/A Mathews Machine & Hydraulic Supply

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 20, 2006
Docket13-06-00296-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Felipe Mendoza-Brito v. Wade Allen Mathews D/B/A Mathews Machine & Hydraulic Supply (Felipe Mendoza-Brito v. Wade Allen Mathews D/B/A Mathews Machine & Hydraulic Supply) 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
Felipe Mendoza-Brito v. Wade Allen Mathews D/B/A Mathews Machine & Hydraulic Supply, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

                             NUMBER 13-06-296-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_______________________________________________________

FELIPE MENDOZA-BRITO, ET AL.,                             Appellants,

                                           v.

WADE ALLEN MATHEWS D/B/A MATHEWS

MACHINE & HYDRAULIC SUPPLY, ET AL.,                   Appellees.

                  On appeal from the 206th District Court

                            of Hidalgo County, Texas

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam


Appellants, FELIPE MENDOZA-BRITO, ET AL., attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-044-05-D.  Judgment in this cause was signed on April 20, 2006.  No timely motion for new trial was filed.  Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellants= notice of appeal was due on May 22, 2006, but was not filed until May 26, 2006. 

Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done.  Appellants were 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 appellants.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants= failure to timely perfect this appeal, and appellants= failure to respond to this Court=s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 20th day of July, 2006.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Felipe Mendoza-Brito v. Wade Allen Mathews D/B/A Mathews Machine & Hydraulic Supply, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felipe-mendoza-brito-v-wade-allen-mathews-dba-math-texapp-2006.