Jose L. Soto v. City of Edinburg, Texas
This text of Jose L. Soto v. City of Edinburg, Texas (Jose L. Soto v. City of Edinburg, Texas) 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 13-12-00419-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________
JOSE L. SOTO, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF EDINBURG, TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Jose L. Soto, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered by
the County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause no. CL-05-2304-G.
Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this
appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. The Clerk of this Court notified
appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. 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 failed to respond to the Court=s notice.
Additionally, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal
failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e). See TEX. R. APP. P.
9.5(e). The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended notice of appeal with the district
clerk's office within 30 days from the date of that notice. To date, the defect has not been
corrected.
An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for failure to comply with a notice
from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See Tex. R.
App. P. 42.3(c). The Court, having considered the documents on file, and appellant’s
failure to correct the defects, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See
id. 37.3, 42.3(a),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction and
failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See id.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the 23rd day of August, 2012.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jose L. Soto v. City of Edinburg, Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-l-soto-v-city-of-edinburg-texas-texapp-2012.