Terry W. Coufal v. the City of Missouri City

Court of Appeals of Texas

Terry W. Coufal v. the City of Missouri City

DecidedAugust 31, 2006

Docket14-06-00556-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Terry W. Coufal v. the City of Missouri City (Terry W. Coufal v. the City of Missouri City) 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

Terry W. Coufal v. the City of Missouri City, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 31, 2006

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 31, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-00556-CV

TERRY W. COUFAL, Appellant

V.

THE CITY OF MISSOURI CITY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County , Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 05-CV140625

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed May 11, 2006. No clerk=s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record.

On July 26, 2006, notification was transmitted to all parties of this court=s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellant filed no response.

In addition, our records show that to date appellant has neither established indigence nor paid the $125.00 appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless indigent);Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); see also Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals, Misc. Docket No. 98-9120 (Tex. Jul. 21, 1998) (listing fees in court of appeals); Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 51.207 (Vernon 2005) (same). After being given the requisite ten-days= notice that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not respond. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time).

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed August 31, 2006.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Guzman.

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

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 31, 2006

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 31, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-00556-CV

TERRY W. COUFAL, Appellant

V.

THE CITY OF MISSOURI CITY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County , Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 05-CV140625

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed May 11, 2006. No clerk=s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record.

On July 26, 2006, notification was transmitted to all parties of this court=s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellant filed no response.

In addition, our records show that to date appellant has neither established indigence nor paid the $125.00 appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless indigent);Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); see also Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals, Misc. Docket No. 98-9120 (Tex. Jul. 21, 1998) (listing fees in court of appeals); Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 51.207 (Vernon 2005) (same). After being given the requisite ten-days= notice that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not respond. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time).

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed August 31, 2006.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Guzman.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Terry W. Coufal v. the City of Missouri City, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terry-w-coufal-v-the-city-of-missouri-city-texapp-2006.