Troy Randell Edmon v. Wayne E. Whitten and David Green

Court of Appeals of Texas

Troy Randell Edmon v. Wayne E. Whitten and David Green

DecidedMarch 31, 2006

Docket12-06-00015-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Troy Randell Edmon v. Wayne E. Whitten and David Green (Troy Randell Edmon v. Wayne E. Whitten and David Green) 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

Troy Randell Edmon v. Wayne E. Whitten and David Green, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MARY'S OPINION HEADING

NO. 12-06-00015-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TROY RANDELL EDMON, § APPEAL FROM THE 87TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

WAYNE E. WHITTEN AND

DAVID GREEN, § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEES

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). Appellant perfected his appeal on December 27, 2005. Thereafter, the clerk’s record was filed on January 30, 2006, making Appellant’s brief due on or before March 1, 2006. When Appellant failed to file his brief within the required time, this Court notified him on March 10, 2006 that the brief was past due and warned that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution if no motion for extension of time to file the brief was filed by March 20, 2006. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). The notice further informed Appellant that the motion for extension of time must contain a reasonable explanation for his failure to file the brief and a showing that Appellees had not suffered material injury thereby.

On March 22, 2006, Appellant filed a motion to accelerate the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.3. In his motion, Appellant states that Rule 28.3 permits an appeal to be heard on the original papers forwarded by the trial court or on sworn and uncontroverted copies of those papers. Appellant appears to conclude that where no appellate brief is filed in a civil case, Rule 28.3 authorizes us to review the record and decide the merits of the appeal. Appellant misinterprets the rule. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a). Because Appellant has not complied with our March 10, 2006 notice, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution, and we take no action on Appellant’s motion to accelerate the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3.(b).

Opinion delivered March 31, 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. 12-06-00015-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TROY RANDELL EDMON, § APPEAL FROM THE 87TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

WAYNE E. WHITTEN AND

DAVID GREEN, § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEES

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). Appellant perfected his appeal on December 27, 2005. Thereafter, the clerk’s record was filed on January 30, 2006, making Appellant’s brief due on or before March 1, 2006. When Appellant failed to file his brief within the required time, this Court notified him on March 10, 2006 that the brief was past due and warned that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution if no motion for extension of time to file the brief was filed by March 20, 2006. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). The notice further informed Appellant that the motion for extension of time must contain a reasonable explanation for his failure to file the brief and a showing that Appellees had not suffered material injury thereby.

On March 22, 2006, Appellant filed a motion to accelerate the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.3. In his motion, Appellant states that Rule 28.3 permits an appeal to be heard on the original papers forwarded by the trial court or on sworn and uncontroverted copies of those papers. Appellant appears to conclude that where no appellate brief is filed in a civil case, Rule 28.3 authorizes us to review the record and decide the merits of the appeal. Appellant misinterprets the rule. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a). Because Appellant has not complied with our March 10, 2006 notice, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution, and we take no action on Appellant’s motion to accelerate the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3.(b).

Opinion delivered March 31, 2006.

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

(PUBLISH)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Troy Randell Edmon v. Wayne E. Whitten and David Green, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troy-randell-edmon-v-wayne-e-whitten-and-david-gre-texapp-2006.