Oddis Dunn v. Park Harbor Improvement Assn Inc and Its Commercial Members

Court of Appeals of Texas

Oddis Dunn v. Park Harbor Improvement Assn Inc and Its Commercial Members

DecidedAugust 26, 2021

Docket01-21-00010-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Oddis Dunn v. Park Harbor Improvement Assn Inc and Its Commercial Members (Oddis Dunn v. Park Harbor Improvement Assn Inc and Its Commercial Members) 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

Oddis Dunn v. Park Harbor Improvement Assn Inc and Its Commercial Members, (Tex. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Oddis Dunn v. Park Harbor Improvement Association, Inc. and Its Commercial Members

Appellate case number: 01-21-00010-CV

Trial court case number: 2020-06897

Trial court: 234th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw and appellant is in agreement with his counsel’s withdrawal. Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw. Before counsel withdrew, counsel had filed appellant’s brief. Appellant has asked that we permit him to proceed pro se. Appellant has also filed a motion to strike the brief filed by counsel because appellant tendered a pro se appellant’s brief. We grant the motion to strike and strike the appellant’s brief filed on July 2, 2021. Because the Court has granted the motion to withdraw, appellant may proceed pro se. As construed to be a motion to permit appellant to proceed pro se, the motion to reconsider is also granted. The Court has reviewed appellant’s pro se brief and has determined that it does not comply with the Rule 38.1 requirements. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Appellant’s pro se brief fails to include the following: (1) an index of authorities, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(c); (2) a statement of the case supported by record references, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d); (3) a statement regarding oral argument, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(e); (4) citations to the record in the statement of facts, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g); (5) a summary of the argument, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(h); (6) argument containing both citations to the record and to authorities, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); and (7) a prayer for relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(j). We strike appellant’s brief filed on August 3, 2021, and order appellant to file a brief correcting the deficiencies listed and in compliance with Rule 38.1 on or before September 23, 2021. Appellee’s brief will be due 30 days after appellant files a corrected brief. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Richard Hightower____  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __August 26, 2021____

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

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Oddis Dunn v. Park Harbor Improvement Association, Inc. and Its Commercial Members

Appellate case number: 01-21-00010-CV

Trial court case number: 2020-06897

Trial court: 234th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw and appellant is in agreement with his counsel’s withdrawal. Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw. Before counsel withdrew, counsel had filed appellant’s brief. Appellant has asked that we permit him to proceed pro se. Appellant has also filed a motion to strike the brief filed by counsel because appellant tendered a pro se appellant’s brief. We grant the motion to strike and strike the appellant’s brief filed on July 2, 2021. Because the Court has granted the motion to withdraw, appellant may proceed pro se. As construed to be a motion to permit appellant to proceed pro se, the motion to reconsider is also granted. The Court has reviewed appellant’s pro se brief and has determined that it does not comply with the Rule 38.1 requirements. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Appellant’s pro se brief fails to include the following: (1) an index of authorities, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(c); (2) a statement of the case supported by record references, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d); (3) a statement regarding oral argument, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(e); (4) citations to the record in the statement of facts, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g); (5) a summary of the argument, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(h); (6) argument containing both citations to the record and to authorities, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); and (7) a prayer for relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(j). We strike appellant’s brief filed on August 3, 2021, and order appellant to file a brief correcting the deficiencies listed and in compliance with Rule 38.1 on or before September 23, 2021. Appellee’s brief will be due 30 days after appellant files a corrected brief. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Richard Hightower____  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __August 26, 2021____

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Oddis Dunn v. Park Harbor Improvement Assn Inc and Its Commercial Members, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oddis-dunn-v-park-harbor-improvement-assn-inc-and-its-commercial-members-texapp-2021.