Sue Morris and Floyd Lee Morris, Jr. v. Gerald Morris

Court of Appeals of Texas

Sue Morris and Floyd Lee Morris, Jr. v. Gerald Morris

DecidedOctober 8, 2008

Docket12-07-00486-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Sue Morris and Floyd Lee Morris, Jr. v. Gerald Morris (Sue Morris and Floyd Lee Morris, Jr. v. Gerald Morris) 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

Sue Morris and Floyd Lee Morris, Jr. v. Gerald Morris, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

NO. 12-07-00486-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

SUE MORRIS AND FLOYD LEE MORRIS, JR., § APPEAL FROM THE THIRD APPELLANTS

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

GERALD MORRIS, APPELLEE § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX . R. APP. P. 42.3(b). Appellants perfected their appeal on December 21, 2007. After various extensions, the time for filing the reporter’s record expired on August 10, 2008 due to Appellants’ failure to pay for the record. Consequently, Appellants’ brief was due on or before September 10, 2008. When Appellants failed to file their brief within the required time, this court notified them on September 12, 2008 that the brief was past due and warned that if no motion for extension of time to file the brief was received by September 22, 2008, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b). The notice further informed Appellants that the motion for extension of time must contain a reasonable explanation for their failure to file the brief and a showing that Appellee had not suffered material injury thereby. On September 23, 2008, the clerk of this court received a letter from Appellant Sue Morris, in which she requested an extension of time to file the brief and stated she had retained an attorney to “handle this” for her son, Appellant Floyd Lee Morris, Jr. On the same date, the clerk returned the letter to Mrs. Morris informing her that a motion for extension of time must comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure relating to motions, and that she should file a proper motion on or before October 3, 2008. She was further notified that if a party has retained counsel in a case, all documents filed in that case must be presented by counsel. Finally, she was informed that if counsel had been retained, she should have counsel advise the court of his or her representation. To date, neither Appellants nor any attorney acting on behalf of either appellant has complied with or otherwise responded to this court’s September 23, 2008 notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX . R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3.(b). Opinion delivered October 8, 2008. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)

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

NO. 12-07-00486-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

SUE MORRIS AND FLOYD LEE MORRIS, JR., § APPEAL FROM THE THIRD APPELLANTS

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

GERALD MORRIS, APPELLEE § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX . R. APP. P. 42.3(b). Appellants perfected their appeal on December 21, 2007. After various extensions, the time for filing the reporter’s record expired on August 10, 2008 due to Appellants’ failure to pay for the record. Consequently, Appellants’ brief was due on or before September 10, 2008. When Appellants failed to file their brief within the required time, this court notified them on September 12, 2008 that the brief was past due and warned that if no motion for extension of time to file the brief was received by September 22, 2008, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b). The notice further informed Appellants that the motion for extension of time must contain a reasonable explanation for their failure to file the brief and a showing that Appellee had not suffered material injury thereby. On September 23, 2008, the clerk of this court received a letter from Appellant Sue Morris, in which she requested an extension of time to file the brief and stated she had retained an attorney to “handle this” for her son, Appellant Floyd Lee Morris, Jr. On the same date, the clerk returned the letter to Mrs. Morris informing her that a motion for extension of time must comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure relating to motions, and that she should file a proper motion on or before October 3, 2008. She was further notified that if a party has retained counsel in a case, all documents filed in that case must be presented by counsel. Finally, she was informed that if counsel had been retained, she should have counsel advise the court of his or her representation. To date, neither Appellants nor any attorney acting on behalf of either appellant has complied with or otherwise responded to this court’s September 23, 2008 notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX . R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3.(b). Opinion delivered October 8, 2008. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sue Morris and Floyd Lee Morris, Jr. v. Gerald Morris, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sue-morris-and-floyd-lee-morris-jr-v-gerald-morris-texapp-2008.