Malooly, Raymond v. F. W. Adams, Inc., D/B/A the Brokerage

Court of Appeals of Texas

Malooly, Raymond v. F. W. Adams, Inc., D/B/A the Brokerage

DecidedJune 20, 2002

Docket08-01-00437-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Malooly, Raymond v. F. W. Adams, Inc., D/B/A the Brokerage (Malooly, Raymond v. F. W. Adams, Inc., D/B/A the Brokerage) 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

Malooly, Raymond v. F. W. Adams, Inc., D/B/A the Brokerage, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RAYMOND MALOOLY,

Appellant,

v.

F.W. ADAMS, INC.,

D/B/A THE BROKERAGE,

Appellee.

'

No. 08-01-00437-CV

Appeal from the

168th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2000-2292)

O P I N I O N

Under Tex. R. App. P. 38.8, if the appellant in a civil case fails to timely file its brief, the appellate court may:

[ D]ismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee I s not significantly injured by the appellant=s failure to timely file a brief.

Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); see also Resendez v. Schwartz, 940 S.W.2d 715, 716 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1997, no pet.) (citing former Tex. R. App. P. 74(l)(1), now 38.8(a)(1)).

In the present case, the Clerk=s Record was filed November 14, 2001. The Reporter=s Record was filed on November 26. Appellant=s brief was due December 26.

Appellant filed a motion to extend the time for filing his brief. The motion was granted and made appellant=s brief due on February 9, 2002. Appellant filed a second motion. The second motion was granted and made appellant=s brief due March 11. Then, appellant filed a third motion.^{^[1]} We granted appellant=s third motion, extending the time in which to file the brief until April 29. We advised appellant that no further motions for extension of time to file his brief would be granted.

Appellant=s brief was not filed by April 29. On May 9, the Clerk of this Court informed appellant of our intent to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution unless any party within ten days could show grounds for continuing the appeal. No response has been submitted.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.

SUSAN LARSEN, Justice

June 20, 2002

Before Panel No. 1

Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

^{^[1]}A fourth motion was attached as an amended motion to the third motion for extension of time.

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