Markus Stauder v. Gabriele Stauder-Hilpold

Court of Appeals of Texas

Markus Stauder v. Gabriele Stauder-Hilpold

DecidedMay 19, 2005

Docket13-05-00305-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Markus Stauder v. Gabriele Stauder-Hilpold (Markus Stauder v. Gabriele Stauder-Hilpold) 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

Markus Stauder v. Gabriele Stauder-Hilpold, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-05-305-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

MARKUS STAUDER, Appellant,

v.

GABRIELE STAUDER-HILPOLD, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 214th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas

___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Castillo, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, MARKUS STAUDER, attempted to perfect an appeal from an interlocutory order entered by the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 03-7257-F. The order in this cause was signed on February 28, 2005. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), appellant’s notice of appeal was due on March 20, 2005, but was not filed until May 4, 2005.

Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. Appellee has filed an emergency motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and for sanctions and an emergency motion to refer enforcement of interlocutory order to trial court. Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal and response to appellee’s request for sanctions and for referral to trial court.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellee’s motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. Appellee’s motion for sanctions is DENIED. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 19th day of May, 2005.

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

NUMBER 13-05-305-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

MARKUS STAUDER, Appellant,

v.

GABRIELE STAUDER-HILPOLD, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 214th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas

___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Castillo, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, MARKUS STAUDER, attempted to perfect an appeal from an interlocutory order entered by the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 03-7257-F. The order in this cause was signed on February 28, 2005. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), appellant’s notice of appeal was due on March 20, 2005, but was not filed until May 4, 2005.

Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. Appellee has filed an emergency motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and for sanctions and an emergency motion to refer enforcement of interlocutory order to trial court. Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal and response to appellee’s request for sanctions and for referral to trial court.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellee’s motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. Appellee’s motion for sanctions is DENIED. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 19th day of May, 2005.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Markus Stauder v. Gabriele Stauder-Hilpold, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markus-stauder-v-gabriele-stauder-hilpold-texapp-2005.