Sewell, George Edward v. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 28, 2021
Docket05-00-01405-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Sewell, George Edward v. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (Sewell, George Edward v. Pittsburgh Corning 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
Sewell, George Edward v. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, (Tex. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 28, 2021

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-00-01405-CV

GEORGE EDWARD SEWELL AND ELIZABETH UDELL, Appellants V. PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 96-04255-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness We reinstate this appeal. In 2000, we abated this case due to Pittsburgh

Corning Corporation’s bankruptcy. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. The Court conducted

an independent review of the federal Public Access to Court Electronic Records

(PACER) system which shows the bankruptcy case associated with this appeal was

terminated on April 18, 2019, effectively dissolving the automatic stay.

We notified the parties by letter, requesting they inform the Court of the status

of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the failure to respond would

result in the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 42.3(b),(c). To

date, neither party has responded. Because we gave the parties an opportunity to show why we should not

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and no one responded, we dismiss this

appeal. See id. 42.3(b),(c); Brewer v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2002 WL 31312990, at *1

(Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 16, 2002, no writ) (per curiam) (not designated for

publication).

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/ ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE

001405F.P05

–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

GEORGE EDWARD SEWELL and On Appeal from the 44th Judicial ELIZABETH UDALL, Appellants District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 96-04255-B. No. 05-00-01405-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice Partida- Kipness. Justices Myers and Garcia PITTSBURGH CORNING participating. CORPORATION, Appellee

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered May 28, 2021

–3–

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sewell, George Edward v. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sewell-george-edward-v-pittsburgh-corning-corporation-texapp-2021.