Fluor Daniel, Inc. v. H. B. Zachry Company, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 24, 2001
Docket13-01-00289-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Fluor Daniel, Inc. v. H. B. Zachry Company, Inc. (Fluor Daniel, Inc. v. H. B. Zachry Company, Inc.) 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
Fluor Daniel, Inc. v. H. B. Zachry Company, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-01-289-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

________________________________________________________________

FLUOR DANIEL, INC. , Appellant,

v.



H. B. ZACHRY COMPANY, INC. , Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 94th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas

________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N



Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Yanez

Opinion Per Curiam



Appellant, FLUOR DANIEL, INC. , attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 97-3543-C . Judgment in this cause was signed on January 2, 2001 . A timely motion for new trial was filed on January 25, 2001. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant's notice of appeal was due on April 2, 2001 , but was not filed until April 27, 2001 . An untimely motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal was filed by appellant on April 27, 2001. Appellant's motion for leave to file motion to extend time to file notice of appeal was filed on May 2, 2001, and appellee's opposition to appellant's motion to extend time to file notice of appeal was field on May 2, 2001.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to timely perfect its appeal, is of the opinion that appellant's motion should be denied and the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant's motion to extend time to file notice of appeal and motion for leave to file motion to extend time to file notice of appeal are denied. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 24th day of May, 2001 .

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fluor Daniel, Inc. v. H. B. Zachry Company, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fluor-daniel-inc-v-h-b-zachry-company-inc-texapp-2001.