Gonzalez v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Gonzalez v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp.

176 S.W.3d 649, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 8671, 2005 WL 2671295

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 20, 2005

Docket08-05-00191-CV

StatusPublished

This text of 176 S.W.3d 649 (Gonzalez v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp.) 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

Gonzalez v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 176 S.W.3d 649, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 8671, 2005 WL 2671295 (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice.

Pending before the Court on its own initiative is the dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex.R.App.P. 42.3(b). This Court possesses the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when an appellant in a civil case fails to timely file its brief and gives no reasonable explanation for such failure. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.8(a)(1).

On May 12, 2005, Appellants timely filed a notice of appeal in this cause. As of this date, no Appellants’ brief nor motion for extension of time has been filed with the *650 Court. On August 22, 2005, this Court’s clerk sent a letter to the parties indicating the Court’s intent to dismiss the case for want of prosecution absent a response from any party within ten days to show grounds for continuing the appeal. No response has been received as of this date. Accordingly, pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 42.3(b) and (c), we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

CHEW, J., not participating.

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

OPINION

RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice.

Pending before the Court on its own initiative is the dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex.R.App.P. 42.3(b). This Court possesses the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when an appellant in a civil case fails to timely file its brief and gives no reasonable explanation for such failure. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.8(a)(1).

On May 12, 2005, Appellants timely filed a notice of appeal in this cause. As of this date, no Appellants’ brief nor motion for extension of time has been filed with the *650 Court. On August 22, 2005, this Court’s clerk sent a letter to the parties indicating the Court’s intent to dismiss the case for want of prosecution absent a response from any party within ten days to show grounds for continuing the appeal. No response has been received as of this date. Accordingly, pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 42.3(b) and (c), we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

CHEW, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 S.W.3d 649, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 8671, 2005 WL 2671295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-chase-manhattan-mortgage-corp-texapp-2005.