in Re Ernest Ray Koonce

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re Ernest Ray Koonce

DecidedJune 12, 2015

Docket01-15-00440-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in Re Ernest Ray Koonce (in Re Ernest Ray Koonce) 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

in Re Ernest Ray Koonce, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ernest Ray Koonce v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Appellate case number: 01-15-00440-CV

Trial court case number: 2010-64752

Trial court: 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County

On May 12, 2015, appellant-relator Ernest Ray Koonce, proceeding pro se, filed a “Petition for Permission to Appeal Amended Order Reversing the Granting of Plaintiff’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and Standing of Wells Fargo Bank, NA or Alternative[ly], Petit[i]on for Writ of Mandamus.” To the extent appellant-relator intended that his pleading be construed as a petition for permissive appeal, it does not comply with the applicable rules, namely that it does not attach a copy of the trial court’s order granting permission to appeal in that order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(a), (e)(2) & Notes and Comments; TEX. R. CIV. P. 168. Accordingly, because appellant-relator is proceeding pro se and requested mandamus relief in the alternative, the Court construes this petition as a mandamus petition, and the Clerk of this Court is directed to designate this petition as an original proceeding.1 Because no filing fee was paid, the Court orders relator to pay the $145 filing fee within 30 days of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5. Further, because no response has been filed yet, the Court requests a response to the mandamus petition from any real party in interest. See id. at 52.8(b)(1). Any response must be filed within 30 days of the date of this order. See id. at 2, 52.4. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes  Acting individually  Acting for the Court Date: June 11, 2015 1 Although appellant-relator’s petition was filed in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction sent by the Clerk of this Court on April 30, 2015, in cause number 01-15-00228-CV, the Clerk was directed to assign it this new number.

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

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ernest Ray Koonce v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Appellate case number: 01-15-00440-CV

Trial court case number: 2010-64752

Trial court: 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County

On May 12, 2015, appellant-relator Ernest Ray Koonce, proceeding pro se, filed a “Petition for Permission to Appeal Amended Order Reversing the Granting of Plaintiff’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and Standing of Wells Fargo Bank, NA or Alternative[ly], Petit[i]on for Writ of Mandamus.” To the extent appellant-relator intended that his pleading be construed as a petition for permissive appeal, it does not comply with the applicable rules, namely that it does not attach a copy of the trial court’s order granting permission to appeal in that order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(a), (e)(2) & Notes and Comments; TEX. R. CIV. P. 168. Accordingly, because appellant-relator is proceeding pro se and requested mandamus relief in the alternative, the Court construes this petition as a mandamus petition, and the Clerk of this Court is directed to designate this petition as an original proceeding.1 Because no filing fee was paid, the Court orders relator to pay the $145 filing fee within 30 days of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5. Further, because no response has been filed yet, the Court requests a response to the mandamus petition from any real party in interest. See id. at 52.8(b)(1). Any response must be filed within 30 days of the date of this order. See id. at 2, 52.4. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes  Acting individually  Acting for the Court Date: June 11, 2015 1 Although appellant-relator’s petition was filed in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction sent by the Clerk of this Court on April 30, 2015, in cause number 01-15-00228-CV, the Clerk was directed to assign it this new number.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in Re Ernest Ray Koonce, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ernest-ray-koonce-texapp-2015.