Kathy S. Davis v. Earl Gilbert Estate

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 12, 2025
Docket01-23-00930-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Kathy S. Davis v. Earl Gilbert Estate (Kathy S. Davis v. Earl Gilbert Estate) 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
Kathy S. Davis v. Earl Gilbert Estate, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Opinion issued June 12, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00930-CV ——————————— KATHY DAVIS, Appellant V. EARL M. GILBERT IRREVOCABLE TRUST, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1210475

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Kathy Davis, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the

trial court’s December 8, 2023 final judgment. Appellant has failed to timely file a

brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief). The clerk’s record was filed on February 20, 2024, and the reporter’s record

was filed by October 11, 2024. Accordingly, appellant’s brief was due on November

13, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Appellant failed to timely file a brief.

On February 3, 2025, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the time

for filing a brief had expired and the appeal was subject to dismissal unless a brief,

or a motion to extend time to file a brief, was filed within ten days of the notice. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief), 42.3(b)

(allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing

involuntary dismissal of case for failure to comply with notice from Clerk of Court).

Despite the notice that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not

adequately respond.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(b), (c); 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kathy S. Davis v. Earl Gilbert Estate, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kathy-s-davis-v-earl-gilbert-estate-texapp-2025.