Mary Sappington, as Representative of the Estate of Goldie Murphy v. Mariner Post-Acute Network, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Mary Sappington, as Representative of the Estate of Goldie Murphy v. Mariner Post-Acute Network, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 28, 2005·No. 13-04-00658-CV·Published

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

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

Mary Sappington, as Representative of the Estate of Goldie Murphy v. Mariner Post-Acute Network, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

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.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.