Glenda Torres v. R. Y. Livestock Sales, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Glenda Torres v. R. Y. Livestock Sales, Inc.

DecidedJune 30, 2005

Docket13-05-00012-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Glenda Torres v. R. Y. Livestock Sales, Inc. (Glenda Torres v. R. Y. Livestock Sales, 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

Glenda Torres v. R. Y. Livestock Sales, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-05-012-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

GLENDA TORRES, Appellant,

v.

R. Y. LIVESTOCK SALES, INC., Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, GLENDA TORRES, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by County Court at Law No. 1 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CL-25,456-A. The clerk=s record was filed on January 21, 2005. The reporter=s record was filed on April 22, 2005. Appellant=s brief was due on May 23, 2005. To date, no 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 June 1, 2005, 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, appellant=s failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court=s notice, and appellant=s failure to respond, 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 30^th day of June, 2005

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

NUMBER 13-05-012-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

GLENDA TORRES, Appellant,

v.

R. Y. LIVESTOCK SALES, INC., Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, GLENDA TORRES, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by County Court at Law No. 1 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CL-25,456-A. The clerk=s record was filed on January 21, 2005. The reporter=s record was filed on April 22, 2005. Appellant=s brief was due on May 23, 2005. To date, no 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 June 1, 2005, 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, appellant=s failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court=s notice, and appellant=s failure to respond, 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 30^th day of June, 2005

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Glenda Torres v. R. Y. Livestock Sales, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glenda-torres-v-r-y-livestock-sales-inc-texapp-2005.