in the Matter of the Marriage of Candice Rae Marsalis and James Frank Marsalis and in the Interest of W. D. M., S. P. M., J. E. M., J. J. M., J. L. M. and M. R. M., Children
This text of in the Matter of the Marriage of Candice Rae Marsalis and James Frank Marsalis and in the Interest of W. D. M., S. P. M., J. E. M., J. J. M., J. L. M. and M. R. M., Children (in the Matter of the Marriage of Candice Rae Marsalis and James Frank Marsalis and in the Interest of W. D. M., S. P. M., J. E. M., J. J. M., J. L. M. and M. R. M., Children) 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
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________
No. 06-09-00109-CV ______________________________
CLAY EARLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND LAKE FORK DRILLING, INC., D/B/A CLAY EARLE WATER WELL DRILLING, Appellants
V.
PREFERRED PUMP AND EQUIPMENT, L.P., Appellee
On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court Wood County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006-469
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION
Clay Earle, individually, and Lake Fork Drilling, Inc., d/b/a Clay Earle Water Well
Drilling, filed their notice of appeal December 1, 2009.
The clerk’s record was filed March 30, 2010. The reporter’s record was due to be filed on
or before March 1, 2010, and has not been filed. When no reporter’s record had been filed by
April 19, 2010, we contacted the appellants (whose attorney was permitted to withdraw from
representation March 30, 2010, after providing requisite notice) by letter and informed them that,
if we did not receive information that appellants were making a substantial and tangible effort to
prosecute the appeal by showing, within ten days of the date of the letter, either a reasonable
attempt to obtain the reporter’s record or by filing a brief based solely on the clerk’s record, the
appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).
We have received no communication from the appellants. Pursuant to Rule 42.3(b) of the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP.
P. 42.3(b).
Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice
Date Submitted: May 12, 2010 Date Decided: May 13, 2010
2 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in the Matter of the Marriage of Candice Rae Marsalis and James Frank Marsalis and in the Interest of W. D. M., S. P. M., J. E. M., J. J. M., J. L. M. and M. R. M., Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-the-marriage-of-candice-rae-marsalis-and-james-frank-texapp-2010.