Serena Grant and Yolandra Dinelli v. Ken Barrett, Individually and D/B/A Coltans, Inc., A/K/A Aamco Transmissions

Court of Appeals of Texas

Serena Grant and Yolandra Dinelli v. Ken Barrett, Individually and D/B/A Coltans, Inc., A/K/A Aamco Transmissions

DecidedDecember 21, 2000

Docket13-00-00616-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Serena Grant and Yolandra Dinelli v. Ken Barrett, Individually and D/B/A Coltans, Inc., A/K/A Aamco Transmissions (Serena Grant and Yolandra Dinelli v. Ken Barrett, Individually and D/B/A Coltans, Inc., A/K/A Aamco Transmissions) 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

Serena Grant and Yolandra Dinelli v. Ken Barrett, Individually and D/B/A Coltans, Inc., A/K/A Aamco Transmissions, (Tex. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-00-616-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

SERENA GRANT AND YOLANDRA DINELLI

, Appellants,

v.

KEN BARRETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A

COLTANS, INC., A/K/A AAMCO TRANSMISSIONS

, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Rodriguez

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, SERENA GRANT AND YOLANDRA DINELLI, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 664,574. The clerk's record was filed on September 11, 2000. No reporter's record was filed. Appellant's brief was due on October 11, 2000. 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 14, 2000, 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

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 21^st day of December, 2000

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

NUMBER 13-00-616-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

SERENA GRANT AND YOLANDRA DINELLI

, Appellants,

v.

KEN BARRETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A

COLTANS, INC., A/K/A AAMCO TRANSMISSIONS

, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Rodriguez

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, SERENA GRANT AND YOLANDRA DINELLI, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 664,574. The clerk's record was filed on September 11, 2000. No reporter's record was filed. Appellant's brief was due on October 11, 2000. 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 14, 2000, 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

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 21^st day of December, 2000

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Serena Grant and Yolandra Dinelli v. Ken Barrett, Individually and D/B/A Coltans, Inc., A/K/A Aamco Transmissions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/serena-grant-and-yolandra-dinelli-v-ken-barrett-in-texapp-2000.