Raymond Murray v. Pete Sullivan D/B/A Sullivan's Advanced Automotive Care & Sullivan's Auto Care

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 23, 2008
Docket14-08-00023-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Raymond Murray v. Pete Sullivan D/B/A Sullivan's Advanced Automotive Care & Sullivan's Auto Care (Raymond Murray v. Pete Sullivan D/B/A Sullivan's Advanced Automotive Care & Sullivan's Auto Care) 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
Raymond Murray v. Pete Sullivan D/B/A Sullivan's Advanced Automotive Care & Sullivan's Auto Care, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 23, 2008

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 23, 2008.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00023-CV

RAYMOND MURRAY, Appellant

V.

PETE SULLIVAN d/b/a SULLIVAN=S ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE CARE and SULLIVAN=S AUTO CARE, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 875224

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed October 26, 2007.  The clerk=s record was filed on February 22, 2008.  Appellant failed to make arrangements to pay for the reporter=s record. 


On June 5, 2008, this Court issued an order stating that unless appellant submitted his brief, together with a motion reasonably explaining why the brief was late, on or before July 7, 2008, the Court would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b)..  Appellant requested and was granted an extension of time to file his brief until August 7, 2008.  No brief or further motion for extension was filed.  On August 21, 2008, this Court issued an order stating that unless appellant submitted his brief, together with a motion reasonably explaining why the brief was late, on or before September 22, 2008, the Court would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).  Appellant filed no response.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed October 23, 2008.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Seymore, and Boyce.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Raymond Murray v. Pete Sullivan D/B/A Sullivan's Advanced Automotive Care & Sullivan's Auto Care, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-murray-v-pete-sullivan-dba-sullivans-advan-texapp-2008.