John E. Chavez and Nancy Chavez v. Steven Allen Foster, Hubert Earl Foster, and the Grass Company, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

John E. Chavez and Nancy Chavez v. Steven Allen Foster, Hubert Earl Foster, and the Grass Company, Inc.

DecidedMay 6, 2004

Docket13-03-00765-CV

StatusPublished

This text of John E. Chavez and Nancy Chavez v. Steven Allen Foster, Hubert Earl Foster, and the Grass Company, Inc. (John E. Chavez and Nancy Chavez v. Steven Allen Foster, Hubert Earl Foster, and the Grass Company, 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

John E. Chavez and Nancy Chavez v. Steven Allen Foster, Hubert Earl Foster, and the Grass Company, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-03-765-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

JOHN E. CHAVES AND NANCY CHAVEZ, Appellants,

v.

STEVEN ALLEN FOSTER, HUBERT EARL FOSTER,

AND THE GRASS COMPANY, INC., Appellees.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Castillo, and Garza

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, JOHN E. CHAVES AND NANCY CHAVEZ, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered by the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause no. 96-4485-G. The clerk’s record was received on March 3, 2004.

Upon review of the clerk’s record, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a response to this Court’s notice on March 30, 2004.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s response 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.

PER CURIAM

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 6^th day of May, 2004.

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

NUMBER 13-03-765-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

JOHN E. CHAVES AND NANCY CHAVEZ, Appellants,

v.

STEVEN ALLEN FOSTER, HUBERT EARL FOSTER,

AND THE GRASS COMPANY, INC., Appellees.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Castillo, and Garza

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, JOHN E. CHAVES AND NANCY CHAVEZ, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered by the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause no. 96-4485-G. The clerk’s record was received on March 3, 2004.

Upon review of the clerk’s record, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a response to this Court’s notice on March 30, 2004.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s response 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.

PER CURIAM

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 6^th day of May, 2004.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

John E. Chavez and Nancy Chavez v. Steven Allen Foster, Hubert Earl Foster, and the Grass Company, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-e-chavez-and-nancy-chavez-v-steven-allen-fost-texapp-2004.