Patricia McAlister v. David Curtis Shafer, Wooten and Sons Enterprise, LLC, Jonathan Coleman. Central Texas Dachshund Rescue and Winston Knox
This text of Patricia McAlister v. David Curtis Shafer, Wooten and Sons Enterprise, LLC, Jonathan Coleman. Central Texas Dachshund Rescue and Winston Knox (Patricia McAlister v. David Curtis Shafer, Wooten and Sons Enterprise, LLC, Jonathan Coleman. Central Texas Dachshund Rescue and Winston Knox) 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
DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 14, 2022
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00339-CV
PATRICIA MCALISTER, Appellant V. DAVID CURTIS SHAFER; WINSTON KNOX; WOOTEN AND SONS ENTERPRISE, LLC; JONATHAN COLEMAN; AND CENTRAL TEXAS DACHSHUND RESCUE, Appellees
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-02038-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Goldstein, and Justice Smith Opinion by Chief Justice Burns By notice of appeal filed April 13, 2022, appellant challenges “the judgment
signed by the [trial] court on March 14, 2022.” Because the clerk’s record did not
reflect the trial court had signed a judgment or order on that date or since then, we
questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal. See Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co., 907
S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (appellate timetable begins to run from
date written judgment or appealable order is signed). We directed appellant to file
a letter brief addressing our concern no later than June 27, 2022, and subsequently
extended the deadline twice, making the letter brief last due August 22, 2022. Our order granting the last extension cautioned appellant that further
extension requests would not be granted and failure to file the brief by August 22
could result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P.
42.3. Rather than filing the letter brief, appellant has filed another extension motion.
Having cautioned her that further extension requests would not be granted, we deny
the motion.
On the record before us, we dismiss the appeal. See id. 42.3(a); Ben E. Keith,
907 S.W.2d at 496.
/Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
220339F.P05
–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
PATRICIA MCALISTER, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-22-00339-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-02038- A. DAVID CURTIS SHAFER; Opinion delivered by Chief Justice WINSTON KNOX; WOOTEN AND Burns, Justices Goldstein and Smith SONS ENTERPRISE, LLC; participating. JONATHAN COLEMAN; AND CENTRAL TEXAS DACHSHUND RESCUE, Appellees
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
Judgment entered September 14, 2022.
–3–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Patricia McAlister v. David Curtis Shafer, Wooten and Sons Enterprise, LLC, Jonathan Coleman. Central Texas Dachshund Rescue and Winston Knox, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patricia-mcalister-v-david-curtis-shafer-wooten-and-sons-enterprise-llc-texapp-2022.