Tommy Peeler v. Don Braziel, and Mary Castleberry, Trustee, the Castleberry Family Trust

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 13, 2012
Docket06-12-00045-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Tommy Peeler v. Don Braziel, and Mary Castleberry, Trustee, the Castleberry Family Trust (Tommy Peeler v. Don Braziel, and Mary Castleberry, Trustee, the Castleberry Family Trust) 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
Tommy Peeler v. Don Braziel, and Mary Castleberry, Trustee, the Castleberry Family Trust, (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________

No. 06-12-00028-CV ______________________________

THE CRAWFORD FAMILY FARM PARTNERSHIP, Appellant

V.

TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, L.P., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 80810

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 8, 2012, this Court denied The Crawford Family Farm Partnership’s (Crawford)

petition for writ of mandamus because the order against which the mandamus was sought, an order

denying a permanent injunction, is, by statute, appealable.

Because Crawford alternatively asked this Court to treat the document as its attempt to

perfect an interlocutory appeal, we filed it on March 8 under this cause number and treated it as a

notice of appeal. We also informed Crawford that due to this being an accelerated, interlocutory

appeal, the record was due ten days from March 8.

When no clerk’s or reporter’s record had been filed by March 26, our clerk’s office

contacted the district clerk and the court reporter. She was informed that no request had been

made for preparation of the record, and no payment had been made for its preparation.

Crawford is not indigent and is therefore responsible for payment of the clerk’s and

reporter’s records. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1, 35.3(a)(2), (b)(3).

On March 26, we contacted Crawford by letter, informing it that a response was to be

received on or before April 6, 2012, and warning that if we did not receive an adequate response

within ten days of March 26, this appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

2 We have received no communication from Crawford. Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b),

we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.

Jack Carter Justice

Date Submitted: April 12, 2012 Date Decided: April 13, 2012

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tommy Peeler v. Don Braziel, and Mary Castleberry, Trustee, the Castleberry Family Trust, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tommy-peeler-v-don-braziel-and-mary-castleberry-tr-texapp-2012.