Royce Lamar Callaway, Jr. v. Peter C. Gilman

Court of Appeals of Texas

Royce Lamar Callaway, Jr. v. Peter C. Gilman

DecidedApril 19, 2001

Docket13-00-00728-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Royce Lamar Callaway, Jr. v. Peter C. Gilman (Royce Lamar Callaway, Jr. v. Peter C. Gilman) 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

Royce Lamar Callaway, Jr. v. Peter C. Gilman, (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-00-728-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

ROYCE LAMAR CALLAWAY, JR.

, Appellant,

v.

PETER C. GILMAN

, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Yanez

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, ROYCE LAMAR CALLAWAY, JR., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number 1999-03-1144-A. The clerk's record was filed on January 23, 2001. The reporter's record was filed on December 20, 2000. Appellant's brief was due on February 22, 2001. 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 March 7, 2001, 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

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 19^th day of April, 2001

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

NUMBER 13-00-728-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

ROYCE LAMAR CALLAWAY, JR.

, Appellant,

v.

PETER C. GILMAN

, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Yanez

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, ROYCE LAMAR CALLAWAY, JR., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number 1999-03-1144-A. The clerk's record was filed on January 23, 2001. The reporter's record was filed on December 20, 2000. Appellant's brief was due on February 22, 2001. 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 March 7, 2001, 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

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 19^th day of April, 2001

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Royce Lamar Callaway, Jr. v. Peter C. Gilman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royce-lamar-callaway-jr-v-peter-c-gilman-texapp-2001.