Kevin Powell v. DAZ Investments, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 25, 2016
Docket01-15-00894-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Kevin Powell v. DAZ Investments, LLC (Kevin Powell v. DAZ Investments, LLC) 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
Kevin Powell v. DAZ Investments, LLC, (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Opinion issued February 25, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-15-00894-CV ——————————— KEVIN POWELL, Appellant V. DAZ INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15-CCV-055674

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Kevin Powell, filed a notice of appeal in the trial court from the

final judgment, signed on September 1, 2015, after filing a motion for new trial in

this forcible detainer action. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). However, appellant

has neither paid the required filing fee nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See id. 5, 20.1; see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207,

51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041(1) (West Supp. 2015), § 101.0411 (West Supp. 2015);

Order, Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of

Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket

No. 15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). Further, appellant has neither paid nor made

arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P.

37.3(b). After being notified by the Clerk of this Court on November 10, 2015,

and again on December 30, 2015, that this appeal was subject to dismissal for

failure to pay the required fees, appellant did not timely respond. See id. 5,

37.3(b), 42.3(c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and

for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c). We dismiss

any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Higley.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kevin Powell v. DAZ Investments, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kevin-powell-v-daz-investments-llc-texapp-2016.