Gloria Dickens v. Bombardier Capital, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Gloria Dickens v. Bombardier Capital, Inc.

DecidedJuly 20, 2005

Docket12-05-00211-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Gloria Dickens v. Bombardier Capital, Inc. (Gloria Dickens v. Bombardier Capital, 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

Gloria Dickens v. Bombardier Capital, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MARY'S OPINION HEADING

NO. 12-05-00211-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

GLORIA DICKENS, § APPEAL FROM THE 86TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

BOMBARDIER CAPITAL, INC.,

APPELLEE § KAUFMAN COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a). The trial court’s judgment was signed on February 22, 2005. Under rule of appellate procedure 26.1, unless Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial or other postjudgment motion which extended the appellate deadlines, her notice of appeal was due to have been filed “within 30 days after the judgment [was] signed.” Appellant filed a motion for new trial. Therefore, her notice of appeal was due to have been filed “within 90 days after the judgment [was] signed,” i.e., May 23, 2005. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). However, Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 6, 2005. Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed on or before May 23, 2005.

On July 6, 2005, this Court notified Appellant pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a) that her notice of appeal was untimely, and it informed her that unless the record was amended on or before July 18, 2005 to establish the jurisdiction of this Court, the appeal would be dismissed. The deadline for responding to this Court’s notice has expired, and Appellant has neither responded to our notice nor established this Court’s jurisdiction.

Because this Court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting an appeal except as provided by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 26.3, the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

Opinion delivered July 20, 2005.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(PUBLISH)

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

MARY'S OPINION HEADING

NO. 12-05-00211-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

GLORIA DICKENS, § APPEAL FROM THE 86TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

BOMBARDIER CAPITAL, INC.,

APPELLEE § KAUFMAN COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a). The trial court’s judgment was signed on February 22, 2005. Under rule of appellate procedure 26.1, unless Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial or other postjudgment motion which extended the appellate deadlines, her notice of appeal was due to have been filed “within 30 days after the judgment [was] signed.” Appellant filed a motion for new trial. Therefore, her notice of appeal was due to have been filed “within 90 days after the judgment [was] signed,” i.e., May 23, 2005. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). However, Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 6, 2005. Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed on or before May 23, 2005.

On July 6, 2005, this Court notified Appellant pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a) that her notice of appeal was untimely, and it informed her that unless the record was amended on or before July 18, 2005 to establish the jurisdiction of this Court, the appeal would be dismissed. The deadline for responding to this Court’s notice has expired, and Appellant has neither responded to our notice nor established this Court’s jurisdiction.

Because this Court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting an appeal except as provided by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 26.3, the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

Opinion delivered July 20, 2005.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(PUBLISH)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gloria Dickens v. Bombardier Capital, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gloria-dickens-v-bombardier-capital-inc-texapp-2005.