Timothy E. Thompson and Pamela Thompson v. Bradley O. King, M.D.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Timothy E. Thompson and Pamela Thompson v. Bradley O. King, M.D.

DecidedJune 7, 2006

Docket12-06-00059-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Timothy E. Thompson and Pamela Thompson v. Bradley O. King, M.D. (Timothy E. Thompson and Pamela Thompson v. Bradley O. King, M.D.) 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

Timothy E. Thompson and Pamela Thompson v. Bradley O. King, M.D., (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MARY'S OPINION HEADING

NO. 12-06-00059-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TIMOTHY E. THOMPSON § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

AND PAMELA THOMPSON,

APPELLANTS

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

BRADLEY O. KING, M.D. AND

MICHAEL WILLIAMS, M.D.,

APPELLEES § SMITH 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 February 27, 2006. Thereafter, the clerk’s record was filed on April 13, 2006, making Appellants’ brief due on or before May 15, 2006. When Appellants failed to file their brief within the required time, this court notified them on May 17, 2006 that the brief was past due and warned that if no motion for extension of time to file the brief was received by May 30, 2006, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 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 Appellees had not suffered material injury thereby.

The deadline has now passed, and Appellants have neither complied with this court’s May 17, 2006 notice nor otherwise responded to the notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

Opinion delivered June 7, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(PUBLISH)

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

MARY'S OPINION HEADING

NO. 12-06-00059-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TIMOTHY E. THOMPSON § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

AND PAMELA THOMPSON,

APPELLANTS

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

BRADLEY O. KING, M.D. AND

MICHAEL WILLIAMS, M.D.,

APPELLEES § SMITH 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 February 27, 2006. Thereafter, the clerk’s record was filed on April 13, 2006, making Appellants’ brief due on or before May 15, 2006. When Appellants failed to file their brief within the required time, this court notified them on May 17, 2006 that the brief was past due and warned that if no motion for extension of time to file the brief was received by May 30, 2006, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 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 Appellees had not suffered material injury thereby.

The deadline has now passed, and Appellants have neither complied with this court’s May 17, 2006 notice nor otherwise responded to the notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

Opinion delivered June 7, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(PUBLISH)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Timothy E. Thompson and Pamela Thompson v. Bradley O. King, M.D., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timothy-e-thompson-and-pamela-thompson-v-bradley-o-texapp-2006.