in the Interest of P. E. W. II, K. M. W., and D. L. W., Childern
This text of in the Interest of P. E. W. II, K. M. W., and D. L. W., Childern (in the Interest of P. E. W. II, K. M. W., and D. L. W., Childern) 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
Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.
Caren Rushton (appellant) appeals from a judgment terminating her parental rights. Both the clerk's and reporter's records were filed with this court on October 22, 2001 and December 10, 2001, respectively. Appellant filed her brief on February 11, 2002. This obligated the appellee to file its brief on March 13, 2002.
On February 18, 2002, Mr. Duke Hooten, counsel for the appellee Texas Department of Regulatory Services (DPRS) contacted this court, via letter, requesting that both "the clerk's record and the reporter's record" be sent to him "via UPS Next Day Air." This court complied with counsel's request and sent both records "via UPS Next Day Air" on February 20, 2002 to Mr. Duke Hooten located at 701 W. 51st St., Austin, Texas 78751.
On March 6, 2002, appellee requested an extension of its briefing deadline. The deadline was extended by the court to April 15, 2002. The latter date came and went without either an appellee's brief or motion to extend the April 15th deadline being filed. Nor has the clerk's record or reporter's record been returned to the court. However, the appellee has indicated that its counsel never received the reporter's record, but only the clerk's record, though both were delivered to it in the same container.
Given the circumstances before us, we order the following. First, the deadline by which the appellee must file its appellee's brief in this cause is extended to May 6, 2002. Should the brief not be filed and received by this court on that date, the cause will be submitted solely upon the brief of the appellant. Second, we order Mr. Duke Hooten and the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services to deliver to the clerk of this court by May 6, 2002, both the clerk and reporter's records previously sent to it by this court pursuant to Mr. Hooten's aforementioned request. Furthermore, in directing Hooten and the TDPRS to deliver both portions of the appellate record to this court we mean that both portions of the record must actually be received by the clerk of this court by 5:00 p.m., May 6, 2002. The failure of counsel to abide by the deadline established herein may result in 1) contempt proceedings, 2) a complaint to the official body governing the acts of attorneys, 3) appropriate sanctions, 4) abatement and remand to the trial court for appropriate action, or 5) action in conformance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(f) dealing with lost records.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
eption Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
NO. 07-11-00066-CV
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
FEBRUARY 10, 2011
IN RE MICHAEL ROCKAFELLOW AND MTBC, LTD., RELATORS
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Pending before this Court is an Emergency Motion for Stay of Deposition and Production of Documents filed by relators, Michael Rockafellow and MTBC, Ltd. By this motion, relators seek an order staying the Amended Order Authorizing Deposition entered by respondent, the Honorable Les Hatch, in cause number 2010-554,734 in the 237th District Court of Lubbock County, Texas. As this Amended Order Authorizing Deposition authorizes the deposition of Rockafellow no later than the 15th day of February 2011, which is an insufficient amount of time for this Court to determine the merits of Rockafellows petition for writ of mandamus, we grant the motion during the pendency of the above-identified original proceeding. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b).
Per Curiam
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in the Interest of P. E. W. II, K. M. W., and D. L. W., Childern, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-p-e-w-ii-k-m-w-and-d-l-w-childe-texapp-2002.