Ronald Van Meter, Robert Hawk and Michael Turner v. Datacom Custom Manufacturing, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ronald Van Meter, Robert Hawk and Michael Turner v. Datacom Custom Manufacturing, Inc.

DecidedAugust 21, 2003

Docket13-03-00284-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Ronald Van Meter, Robert Hawk and Michael Turner v. Datacom Custom Manufacturing, Inc. (Ronald Van Meter, Robert Hawk and Michael Turner v. Datacom Custom Manufacturing, 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

Ronald Van Meter, Robert Hawk and Michael Turner v. Datacom Custom Manufacturing, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-03-284-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

RONALD VAN METER, ET AL., Appellants,

v.

DATACOM CUSTOM MANUFACTURING, INC., Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yanez, and Garza

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, RONALD VAN METER, ET AL., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-1245-02-F. The clerk's record was received on May 16, 2003. No reporter's record was filed. Appellant's brief was due on June 16, 2003. 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 July 16, 2003, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellants were 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, appellants' failure to file a proper appellate brief, 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

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 21st day of August, 2003.

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

NUMBER 13-03-284-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

RONALD VAN METER, ET AL., Appellants,

v.

DATACOM CUSTOM MANUFACTURING, INC., Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yanez, and Garza

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, RONALD VAN METER, ET AL., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-1245-02-F. The clerk's record was received on May 16, 2003. No reporter's record was filed. Appellant's brief was due on June 16, 2003. 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 July 16, 2003, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellants were 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, appellants' failure to file a proper appellate brief, 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

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 21st day of August, 2003.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ronald Van Meter, Robert Hawk and Michael Turner v. Datacom Custom Manufacturing, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-van-meter-robert-hawk-and-michael-turner-v--texapp-2003.