Jody and Christina Cox v. USAA Property and Casualty Insurance, Liz Quye, Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc., William C. Reiffert, P.E., Friesenhahn Plumbing Company and Integrated Testing and Engineering Company

Court of Appeals of Texas

Jody and Christina Cox v. USAA Property and Casualty Insurance, Liz Quye, Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc., William C. Reiffert, P.E., Friesenhahn Plumbing Company and Integrated Testing and Engineering Company

DecidedAugust 9, 2000

Docket04-99-00931-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Jody and Christina Cox v. USAA Property and Casualty Insurance, Liz Quye, Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc., William C. Reiffert, P.E., Friesenhahn Plumbing Company and Integrated Testing and Engineering Company (Jody and Christina Cox v. USAA Property and Casualty Insurance, Liz Quye, Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc., William C. Reiffert, P.E., Friesenhahn Plumbing Company and Integrated Testing and Engineering Company) 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

Jody and Christina Cox v. USAA Property and Casualty Insurance, Liz Quye, Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc., William C. Reiffert, P.E., Friesenhahn Plumbing Company and Integrated Testing and Engineering Company, (Tex. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 04-99-00931-CV

Jody COX and Christina Cox,

Appellants

v.

USAA PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE, et al.,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 96-CI-13002

Honorable David Peeples, Judge Presiding

Per Curiam

Sitting: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. López, Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 9, 2000

APPEAL DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellants' brief, which was due on May 23, 2000, has not been filed. On June 13, 2000, appellees filed a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. On June 16, 2000, this court ordered appellants to show cause in writing by July 3, 2000 why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellants have not responded. The appellees' motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Costs of appeal are taxed against appellants. PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

No. 04-99-00931-CV

Jody COX and Christina Cox,

Appellants

v.

USAA PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE, et al.,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 96-CI-13002

Honorable David Peeples, Judge Presiding

Per Curiam

Sitting: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. López, Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 9, 2000

APPEAL DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellants' brief, which was due on May 23, 2000, has not been filed. On June 13, 2000, appellees filed a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. On June 16, 2000, this court ordered appellants to show cause in writing by July 3, 2000 why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellants have not responded. The appellees' motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Costs of appeal are taxed against appellants. PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jody and Christina Cox v. USAA Property and Casualty Insurance, Liz Quye, Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc., William C. Reiffert, P.E., Friesenhahn Plumbing Company and Integrated Testing and Engineering Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jody-and-christina-cox-v-usaa-property-and-casualty-insurance-liz-quye-texapp-2000.