Roland Burrows v. Chrysler Motor Corporation and Killebrew, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Roland Burrows v. Chrysler Motor Corporation and Killebrew, Inc.

DecidedDecember 21, 2006

Docket13-05-00701-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Roland Burrows v. Chrysler Motor Corporation and Killebrew, Inc. (Roland Burrows v. Chrysler Motor Corporation and Killebrew, Inc.) 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

Roland Burrows v. Chrysler Motor Corporation and Killebrew, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER13-05-701-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________ _

ROLAND BURROWS, Appellant,

v.

CHRYSLER MOTOR CORPORATION AND

KILLEBREW, INC., Appellees.

____________________________________________________ __

On appeal from the 267th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.

_____________________________________________________ _

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, ROLAND BURROWS, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 267th District Court of Victoria County, Texas, in cause number 03-4-59,541-C. The clerk's record was filed on December 27, 2005. No reporter's record was filed. Appellant's brief was due on November 13, 2006. 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 November 28, 2006, 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 21st day of December, 2006

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