John H. Wilshusen v. Rowland Fiberglass, Inc. and Barry Rowland and Carol Rowland, Individually

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 1, 2005
Docket13-05-00518-CV
StatusPublished

This text of John H. Wilshusen v. Rowland Fiberglass, Inc. and Barry Rowland and Carol Rowland, Individually (John H. Wilshusen v. Rowland Fiberglass, Inc. and Barry Rowland and Carol Rowland, Individually) 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 H. Wilshusen v. Rowland Fiberglass, Inc. and Barry Rowland and Carol Rowland, Individually, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

                                           NUMBER 13-05-518-CV

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JOHN H. WILSHUSEN,                                                                     Appellant,

                                                             v.

ROWLAND FIBERGLASS, INC., ET AL.,                                        Appellees.

                             On appeal from the 156th District Court

                                    of San Patricio County, Texas.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                      Before Justices Rodriguez, Castillo, and Garza

                                 Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, JOHN H. WILSHUSEN, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 156th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas, in cause number S-05-5428CV-B.  No clerk=s record has been filed due to appellant=s failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk=s fee for preparing the clerk=s record. 


If the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk=s record because the appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk=s fee for preparing the clerk=s record, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs.  Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

On September 7, 2005, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).  Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed.  To date, no response has been received from appellant.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk=s fee for preparing the clerk=s record,  this Court=s notice, and appellant=s failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 1st day of December, 2005.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
John H. Wilshusen v. Rowland Fiberglass, Inc. and Barry Rowland and Carol Rowland, Individually, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-h-wilshusen-v-rowland-fiberglass-inc-and-barr-texapp-2005.