Texas Business Telecommunication Services, Inc. v. Potomac Leasing Company & Glo Dean Taylor D/B/A Glodene Ente
This text of Texas Business Telecommunication Services, Inc. v. Potomac Leasing Company & Glo Dean Taylor D/B/A Glodene Ente (Texas Business Telecommunication Services, Inc. v. Potomac Leasing Company & Glo Dean Taylor D/B/A Glodene Ente) 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.
Opinion
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 5, 2021
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-85-01392-CV
TEXAS BUSINESS TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC., Appellant V. POTOMAC LEASING COMPANY & GLO DEAN TAYLOR D/B/A GLODENE ENTE, Appellees
On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 85-4608-H
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Goldstein, and Justice Smith Opinion by Chief Justice Burns We reinstate this appeal. This case was abated in 1986 due to 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 closed on May 31, 1989, 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. The letter to appellant’s attorney was returned
because the address was no longer current. Appellant’s counsel has not withdrawn
from representation and has failed to provide the Court with an up-to-date address.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5; 5th Tex. App. (Dallas) Loc. R. 2.
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).
/Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
851392F.P05
–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
TEXAS BUSINESS On Appeal from the 160th Judicial TELECOMMUNICATION District Court, Dallas County, Texas SERVICES, INC., Appellant Trial Court Cause No. 85-4608-H. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice No. 05-85-01392-CV V. Burns. Justices Goldstein and Smith participating. POTOMAC LEASING COMPANY & GLO DEAN TAYLOR D/B/A GLODENE ENTE, Appellees
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.
Judgment entered May 5, 2021
–3–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Texas Business Telecommunication Services, Inc. v. Potomac Leasing Company & Glo Dean Taylor D/B/A Glodene Ente, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texas-business-telecommunication-services-inc-v-potomac-leasing-company-texapp-2021.