Texas Utilities Fuel Company v. Railroad Commission of Texas Martha Whitehead, Treasurer of the State of Texas And Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 1, 1997
Docket03-96-00585-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Texas Utilities Fuel Company v. Railroad Commission of Texas Martha Whitehead, Treasurer of the State of Texas And Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas (Texas Utilities Fuel Company v. Railroad Commission of Texas Martha Whitehead, Treasurer of the State of Texas And Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas) 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
Texas Utilities Fuel Company v. Railroad Commission of Texas Martha Whitehead, Treasurer of the State of Texas And Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN




NO. 03-96-00585-CV

Texas Utilities Fuel Company, Appellant


v.



Railroad Commission of Texas; Martha Whitehead, Treasurer of the State of Texas;

and Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellee



FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 441,748, HONORABLE MARGARET A. COOPER JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

Appellant Texas Utilities Fuel Company appeals a summary judgment rendered in favor of appellees Railroad Commission of Texas; Martha Whitehead, Treasurer of the State of Texas; and Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas. We will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

The Clerk of this Court filed the transcript on October 17, 1996. Because no statement of facts was filed, the Company's brief was due on November 18. Tex. R. App. P. 74(k). Despite notice from this Court that the brief was overdue, the Company has tendered neither a brief nor an extension motion to file the brief. See id. 74(n).

We accordingly dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Id. 60(a)(2), 74(l)(1); Sentinel Pipe Servs., Inc. v. Tandy Computer Leasing, 825 S.W.2d 212, 212 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1992, no writ); Dickson v. Dickson, 541 S.W.2d 895, 896 (Tex. Civ. App.--Austin 1976, writ dism'd).



Before Justices Powers, Jones and Kidd

Appeal Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: May 1, 1997

Do Not Publish

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

Related

Dickson v. Dickson
541 S.W.2d 895 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1976)
Sentinel Pipe Services, Inc. v. Tandy Computer Leasing
825 S.W.2d 212 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Texas Utilities Fuel Company v. Railroad Commission of Texas Martha Whitehead, Treasurer of the State of Texas And Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texas-utilities-fuel-company-v-railroad-commission-of-texas-martha-texapp-1997.