Thelma Barker v. Thomas Gayon Whatley

Court of Appeals of Texas

Thelma Barker v. Thomas Gayon Whatley

DecidedMay 28, 2010

Docket12-09-00459-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Thelma Barker v. Thomas Gayon Whatley (Thelma Barker v. Thomas Gayon Whatley) 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

Thelma Barker v. Thomas Gayon Whatley, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

NO. 12-09-00459-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS THELMA BARKER, APPELLANT ' APPEAL FROM THE 294TH

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THOMAS GAYON WHATLEY, ' VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS APPELLEE MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b). Appellant, Thelma Barker, perfected her appeal on November 30, 2009. The clerk’s record was filed on January 29, 2010, making Barker’s brief due on or before March 1, 2010. When Barker failed to file her brief by March 1, 2010, this court notified Barker on March 5, 2010 that the brief was past due. The notice warned that if no motion for extension of time to file the brief was received by March 15, 2010, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b). Further, the notice informed Barker that the motion for extension of time must contain a reasonable explanation for her failure to file the brief and a showing that Appellee, Thomas Gayon Whatley, had not suffered material injury thereby. Barker subsequently filed two motions for extensions of time to file her brief. Both motions were granted, and her brief was ultimately due on May 12, 2010. When Barker failed to file her brief by that date, this court notified Barker on May 13, 2010 that the brief was past due. The notice warned that if no motion for extension of time to file the brief was received by May 24, 2010, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution under rule 42.3(b). Further, the notice informed Barker that the motion for extension of time must contain a reasonable explanation for her failure to file the brief and a showing that Whatley had not suffered material injury thereby. To date, Barker has neither complied with nor otherwise responded to this court’s May 13, 2010 notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3.(b). Opinion delivered May 28, 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., (PUBLISH)

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

NO. 12-09-00459-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS THELMA BARKER, APPELLANT ' APPEAL FROM THE 294TH

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THOMAS GAYON WHATLEY, ' VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS APPELLEE MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b). Appellant, Thelma Barker, perfected her appeal on November 30, 2009. The clerk’s record was filed on January 29, 2010, making Barker’s brief due on or before March 1, 2010. When Barker failed to file her brief by March 1, 2010, this court notified Barker on March 5, 2010 that the brief was past due. The notice warned that if no motion for extension of time to file the brief was received by March 15, 2010, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b). Further, the notice informed Barker that the motion for extension of time must contain a reasonable explanation for her failure to file the brief and a showing that Appellee, Thomas Gayon Whatley, had not suffered material injury thereby. Barker subsequently filed two motions for extensions of time to file her brief. Both motions were granted, and her brief was ultimately due on May 12, 2010. When Barker failed to file her brief by that date, this court notified Barker on May 13, 2010 that the brief was past due. The notice warned that if no motion for extension of time to file the brief was received by May 24, 2010, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution under rule 42.3(b). Further, the notice informed Barker that the motion for extension of time must contain a reasonable explanation for her failure to file the brief and a showing that Whatley had not suffered material injury thereby. To date, Barker has neither complied with nor otherwise responded to this court’s May 13, 2010 notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3.(b). Opinion delivered May 28, 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., (PUBLISH)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Thelma Barker v. Thomas Gayon Whatley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thelma-barker-v-thomas-gayon-whatley-texapp-2010.