Mary Sappington, as Representative of the Estate of Goldie Murphy v. Mariner Post-Acute Network, Inc.
This text of Mary Sappington, as Representative of the Estate of Goldie Murphy v. Mariner Post-Acute Network, Inc. (Mary Sappington, as Representative of the Estate of Goldie Murphy v. Mariner Post-Acute Network, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
NUMBER 13-04-658-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
_________________________________________________________
MARY SAPPINGTON, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF GOLDIE MURPHY, DECEASED, Appellant,
v.
MARINER POST-ACUTE NETWORK, INC., ET AL., Appellees.
On appeal from the 24th District Court
of Calhoun County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Castillo, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, MARY SAPPINGTON, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GOLDIE MURPHY, DECEASED, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 24th District Court of Calhoun County, Texas, in cause number 2002-5-14178. The clerk’s record was filed on January 4, 2005. No reporter’s record was filed. Appellant’s brief was due on February 3, 2005. To date, no appellate brief has been received.
When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).
On April 1, 2005, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. To date, no response has been received.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court’s notice, and appellant’s failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.
PER CURIAM
Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this the 28th day of April, 2005
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Mary Sappington, as Representative of the Estate of Goldie Murphy v. Mariner Post-Acute Network, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mary-sappington-as-representative-of-the-estate-of-texapp-2005.