Robin Dutton v. Ceridian Corporation

Court of Appeals of Texas

Robin Dutton v. Ceridian Corporation

DecidedJuly 28, 2005

Docket13-05-00250-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Robin Dutton v. Ceridian Corporation (Robin Dutton v. Ceridian Corporation) 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

Robin Dutton v. Ceridian Corporation, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-05-250-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

ROBIN DUTTON, Appellant,

v.

CERIDIAN CORPORATION, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 295th District Court

of Harris County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Castillo

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, ROBIN DUTTON, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 295th District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 2003-65416. The clerk=s record was filed on May 11, 2005. No reporter=s record was filed. Appellant=s brief was due on June 10, 2005. To date, no appellate brief has been received.

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant=s failure to timely file a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On June 16, 2005, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. To date, no response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court=s notice, and appellant=s 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 28^th day of July, 2005

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

NUMBER 13-05-250-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

ROBIN DUTTON, Appellant,

v.

CERIDIAN CORPORATION, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 295th District Court

of Harris County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Castillo

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, ROBIN DUTTON, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 295th District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 2003-65416. The clerk=s record was filed on May 11, 2005. No reporter=s record was filed. Appellant=s brief was due on June 10, 2005. To date, no appellate brief has been received.

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant=s failure to timely file a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On June 16, 2005, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. To date, no response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court=s notice, and appellant=s 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 28^th day of July, 2005

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Robin Dutton v. Ceridian Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robin-dutton-v-ceridian-corporation-texapp-2005.