Harley Dawson v. Berl Handcox
This text of Harley Dawson v. Berl Handcox (Harley Dawson v. Berl Handcox) 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.
Opinion
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
PER CURIAM
This is a dismissal for want of prosecution.
The trial court rendered judgment in the underlying cause on June 13, 1991. A motion for new trial was filed in the court below on July 15, 1991. The record in the above cause was due to be filed in this Court on October 11, 1991. Tex. R. App. P. Ann. 54(a) (Pamph. 1991). A motion for extension of time was due no later than October 28, 1991. Tex. R. App. P. Ann. 54(c) (Pamph. 1991). Appellant filed neither the transcript or statement of facts nor a motion for extension of time showing a reasonable explanation of the need for an extension.
If the appellant fails to file either the transcript or the statement of facts within the prescribed time, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Rule 54(a). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See id.; Veale v. Rose, 688 S.W.2d 600 (Tex. App. 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
[Before Justices Powers, Jones and Kidd]
Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Filed: February 5, 1992
[Do Not Publish]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Harley Dawson v. Berl Handcox, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harley-dawson-v-berl-handcox-texapp-1992.