Finova Capital Corporation v. Harold R. Collins, D/B/A Collins Pharmacy, and Harold R. Collins
This text of Finova Capital Corporation v. Harold R. Collins, D/B/A Collins Pharmacy, and Harold R. Collins (Finova Capital Corporation v. Harold R. Collins, D/B/A Collins Pharmacy, and Harold R. Collins) 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.
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-05-00108-CV
FINOVA CAPITAL CORPORATION, Appellant
Â
V.
HAROLD R. COLLINS, D/B/A COLLINS PHARMACY,
AND HAROLD R. COLLINS, Appellees
                                             Â
On Appeal from the 115th Judicial District Court
Upshur County, Texas
Trial Court No. 652-03
                                                Â
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
            Finova Capital Corporation has filed an appeal from an order dismissing its lawsuit for want of prosecution signed June 11, 2005, by the 115th Judicial District Court in Upshur County. According to the information provided by appellant in the docketing statement with this Court, the record was due to be filed on or before November 9, 2005. Appellant is not indigent, and is thus responsible for paying or making adequate arrangements to pay the clerk's fees for preparing the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). On December 12, 2005, we contacted counsel by letter, reminding her that the clerk's record was over thirty days past due, and warning that, if we did not receive an adequate response within ten days, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).
            As of the date of this opinion, we have received no response. We also contacted the district clerk, who informed us that appellant has not sought to have a clerk's record prepared. The record is now sixty days past due.
            We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
                                                                        Jack Carter
                                                                        Justice
Date Submitted:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â January 11, 2006
Date Decided:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â January 12, 2006
"63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
|
|
In The
Court of Appeals
                       Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
                                               ______________________________
                                                            No. 06-10-00066-CV
                                               ______________________________
                                       CORDELL MOODY, Appellant
                                                               V.
       JOHN SPIVEY AND PROBATION BOARD OF DALLAS, Appellees
                                                                                                 Â
                                      On Appeal from the 276th Judicial District Court
                                                           Marion County, Texas
                                                         Trial Court No. 1000075
                                                                                                 Â
                                         Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
                                           Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
                                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION
           This is an appeal filed by Cordell Moody. He states in his notice of appeal that he is appealing from a final judgment in civil cause number 1000075 in the 276th Judicial District Court of Marion County, Texas. We have contacted the district clerk, and have determined that no order has been entered in this case and no judgment has been rendered. No justiciable action has been taken by the trial court in this case. Thus, there is nothing from which an appeal might be brought.Â
           The constitution vests jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments of district and county courts in the courts of appeals, subject to restrictions and regulations prescribed by law. Tex. Const. art. V, § 6; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon 2008).
           Because there is no order or judgment in this case from which an appeal may be taken, the jurisdiction of this Court has not been invoked.  Accordingly, we dismiss MoodyÂs appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Finova Capital Corporation v. Harold R. Collins, D/B/A Collins Pharmacy, and Harold R. Collins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finova-capital-corporation-v-harold-r-collins-dba-collins-pharmacy-texapp-2006.