Finova Capital Corporation v. Robert Bates, D/B/A Gilmer Drug Co., and Robert Bates

Court of Appeals of Texas

Finova Capital Corporation v. Robert Bates, D/B/A Gilmer Drug Co., and Robert Bates

DecidedJanuary 12, 2006

Docket06-05-00107-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Finova Capital Corporation v. Robert Bates, D/B/A Gilmer Drug Co., and Robert Bates (Finova Capital Corporation v. Robert Bates, D/B/A Gilmer Drug Co., and Robert Bates) 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

Finova Capital Corporation v. Robert Bates, D/B/A Gilmer Drug Co., and Robert Bates, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-05-00107-CV

FINOVA CAPITAL CORPORATION, Appellant

V.

ROBERT BATES, D/B/A GILMER DRUG CO.,

AND ROBERT BATES, Appellees

On Appeal from the 115th Judicial District Court

Upshur County, Texas

Trial Court No. 480-03

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross

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 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 Rule 42.3(b), and(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See 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 record prepared. The record is now sixty days past due.

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Donald R. Ross

Justice

Date Submitted: January 11, 2006

Date Decided: January 12, 2006

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

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-05-00107-CV

FINOVA CAPITAL CORPORATION, Appellant

V.

ROBERT BATES, D/B/A GILMER DRUG CO.,

AND ROBERT BATES, Appellees

On Appeal from the 115th Judicial District Court

Upshur County, Texas

Trial Court No. 480-03

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross

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 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 Rule 42.3(b), and(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See 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 record prepared. The record is now sixty days past due.

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Donald R. Ross

Justice

Date Submitted: January 11, 2006

Date Decided: January 12, 2006

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Finova Capital Corporation v. Robert Bates, D/B/A Gilmer Drug Co., and Robert Bates, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finova-capital-corporation-v-robert-bates-dba-gilm-texapp-2006.