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