Robert Schoenmakers and James Schoenmakers v. Sparkman Well Service, Inc. and Steven Joseph Mozisek

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 4, 2007
Docket13-07-00313-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Robert Schoenmakers and James Schoenmakers v. Sparkman Well Service, Inc. and Steven Joseph Mozisek (Robert Schoenmakers and James Schoenmakers v. Sparkman Well Service, Inc. and Steven Joseph Mozisek) 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
Robert Schoenmakers and James Schoenmakers v. Sparkman Well Service, Inc. and Steven Joseph Mozisek, (Tex. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion



NUMBER 13-07-313-CV



COURT OF APPEALS



THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

__________________________________________



ROBERT SCHOENMAKERS, ET AL., Appellants,



v.



SPARKMAN WELL SERVICE, INC., ET AL., Appellees.

____________________________________________________________



On appeal from the 135th District Court

of Refugio County, Texas.



MEMORANDUM OPINION



Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam



Appellants, ROBERT SCHOENMAKERS, ET AL., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 135th District Court of Refugio County, Texas, in cause number 2004-6-9846. No clerk's record has been filed due to appellants' failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record.

If the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk's record because the appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

On August 14, 2007, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellants were given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellants.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants' failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record, this Court's notice, and appellants' 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 4th day of October, 2007.



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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Robert Schoenmakers and James Schoenmakers v. Sparkman Well Service, Inc. and Steven Joseph Mozisek, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-schoenmakers-and-james-schoenmakers-v-spark-texapp-2007.