NOE LOYA AND BIBIANA McGEE v. Barbee-Neuhaus Implement Company and John Deere Company

Court of Appeals of Texas

NOE LOYA AND BIBIANA McGEE v. Barbee-Neuhaus Implement Company and John Deere Company

DecidedJune 13, 2002

Docket13-02-00235-CV

StatusPublished

This text of NOE LOYA AND BIBIANA McGEE v. Barbee-Neuhaus Implement Company and John Deere Company (NOE LOYA AND BIBIANA McGEE v. Barbee-Neuhaus Implement Company and John Deere Company) 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

NOE LOYA AND BIBIANA McGEE v. Barbee-Neuhaus Implement Company and John Deere Company, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-02-235-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

NOE LOYA AND BIBIANA McGEE, Appellants,

v.

BARBEE-NEUHAUS IMPLEMENT CO.

AND JOHN DEERE COMPANY, Appellees.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 103^rd District Court

of Willacy County, Texas

___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Rodriguez, and Castillo

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, NOE LOYA AND BIBIANA McGEE, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 103^rd District Court of Willacy County, Texas, in cause number 98-265. Judgment in this cause was signed on January 11, 2002. A timely motion for new trial was filed on February 11, 2002. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on April 11, 2002, but was not filed until April 24, 2002.

Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants were 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. To date, no response has been received from appellants. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants= failure to timely perfect their appeal, appellants= failure to respond to this Court=s notice, and appellees= motion to dismiss appeal, is of the opinion that appellees= motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellees= motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 13^th day of June, 2002.

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

NUMBER 13-02-235-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

NOE LOYA AND BIBIANA McGEE, Appellants,

v.

BARBEE-NEUHAUS IMPLEMENT CO.

AND JOHN DEERE COMPANY, Appellees.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 103^rd District Court

of Willacy County, Texas

___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Rodriguez, and Castillo

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, NOE LOYA AND BIBIANA McGEE, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 103^rd District Court of Willacy County, Texas, in cause number 98-265. Judgment in this cause was signed on January 11, 2002. A timely motion for new trial was filed on February 11, 2002. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on April 11, 2002, but was not filed until April 24, 2002.

Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants were 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. To date, no response has been received from appellants. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants= failure to timely perfect their appeal, appellants= failure to respond to this Court=s notice, and appellees= motion to dismiss appeal, is of the opinion that appellees= motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellees= motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 13^th day of June, 2002.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

NOE LOYA AND BIBIANA McGEE v. Barbee-Neuhaus Implement Company and John Deere Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noe-loya-and-bibiana-mcgee-v-barbee-neuhaus-implem-texapp-2002.