Louis Rousset, Jr. v. Michael E. Rousset

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 25, 2003
Docket13-02-00317-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Louis Rousset, Jr. v. Michael E. Rousset (Louis Rousset, Jr. v. Michael E. Rousset) 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
Louis Rousset, Jr. v. Michael E. Rousset, (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion





NUMBER 13-02-317-CV



COURT OF APPEALS



THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG



LOUIS ROUSSET, JR., Appellant,



v.



MICHAEL E. ROUSSET, ET AL., Appellees.

On appeal from the 357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.


MEMORANDUM OPINION



Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Opinion by Justice Yañez



Appellant, Louis S. Rousset, Jr., has filed an amended pro-se brief. Appellant contends the trial court's judgment should be modified. The trial court found in his favor on quiet title and slander of title claims, but it did not award damages. Appellant asks this Court to modify the judgment by awarding damages. We affirm.

Appellant asserts he should have been awarded $66,000 for the lost sale of the property in question. However, appellant does not provide a "statement of facts" or support his contentions with "appropriate citations to authorities." Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. The only authority appellant offers is simply a case in which actual damages were awarded for a successful slander of title claim. See generally Tarrant Bank v. Miller, 833 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1992, writ denied). The analysis in Miller does not support the award of damages in this case.

We overrule this issue.

We cannot consider any other issues for review because of the brief's numerous failings in both substance and form. Appellant's brief does not conform with many of the requirements of rule of appellate procedure 38.1. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. Appellant was given the opportunity to amend, see Tex. R. App. P. 38.9, but still filed a substantially non-conforming brief. If any other issues are presented, they are waived. See Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 410 (Tex. 1997) ("failure to brief an argument waives the claimed error").

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.



LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ

Justice



Opinion delivered and filed this the

25th day of September, 2003.

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

Related

Tarrant Bank v. Miller
833 S.W.2d 666 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Federal Sign v. Texas Southern University
951 S.W.2d 401 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Louis Rousset, Jr. v. Michael E. Rousset, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-rousset-jr-v-michael-e-rousset-texapp-2003.