Jay D. Baugh v. Airtrol Supply, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Jay D. Baugh v. Airtrol Supply, Inc.

DecidedSeptember 30, 2004

Docket13-04-00384-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Jay D. Baugh v. Airtrol Supply, Inc. (Jay D. Baugh v. Airtrol Supply, Inc.) 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

Jay D. Baugh v. Airtrol Supply, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-04-384-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JAY D. BAUGH, ET AL. Appellants,

v.

AIRTROL SUPPLY, INC., ET AL., Appellees.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 117th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas

_____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, JAY D. BAUGH, ET AL, attempted to perfect an appeal from orders entered by the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 01-02200-B. The orders from which this appeal is attempted were signed March 19, 2004 through March 31, 2004. Based on the information before this Court, it does not appear that a timely motion for new trial was filed. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellants’ notice of appeal was due on April 30, 2004, but was not filed until June 21, 2004.

Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants were advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellants.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants’ failure to timely perfect their appeal, and appellants’ failure to respond to this Court’s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 30^th day of September, 2004.

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

NUMBER 13-04-384-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JAY D. BAUGH, ET AL. Appellants,

v.

AIRTROL SUPPLY, INC., ET AL., Appellees.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 117th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas

_____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, JAY D. BAUGH, ET AL, attempted to perfect an appeal from orders entered by the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 01-02200-B. The orders from which this appeal is attempted were signed March 19, 2004 through March 31, 2004. Based on the information before this Court, it does not appear that a timely motion for new trial was filed. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellants’ notice of appeal was due on April 30, 2004, but was not filed until June 21, 2004.

Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants were advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellants.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants’ failure to timely perfect their appeal, and appellants’ failure to respond to this Court’s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 30^th day of September, 2004.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jay D. Baugh v. Airtrol Supply, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jay-d-baugh-v-airtrol-supply-inc-texapp-2004.