Villareal, Jose A. v. Shackleford, Inc., D/B/A Relco Refrigeration Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Villareal, Jose A. v. Shackleford, Inc., D/B/A Relco Refrigeration Co.

DecidedApril 20, 2000

Docket13-99-00513-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Villareal, Jose A. v. Shackleford, Inc., D/B/A Relco Refrigeration Co. (Villareal, Jose A. v. Shackleford, Inc., D/B/A Relco Refrigeration Co.) 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

Villareal, Jose A. v. Shackleford, Inc., D/B/A Relco Refrigeration Co., (Tex. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-99-513-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

JOSE A. VILLARREAL, ET AL., Appellants,

v.

SHACKLEFORD, INC., D/B/A

RELCO REFRIGERATION CO., Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 164th District Court

of Harris County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Chavez

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, JOSE A. VILLARREAL, ET AL., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 164th District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 96022377. The clerk's record was filed on September 3, 1999. No reporter's record was filed. Appellants' brief was due on March 15, 2000. To date, no appellate brief has been received.

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On March 24, 2000, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellants were given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. To date, no response has been received from appellants. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants' failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court's notice, appellant's failure to respond, and appellee's motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellee's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 20^th day of April, 2000

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

NUMBER 13-99-513-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

JOSE A. VILLARREAL, ET AL., Appellants,

v.

SHACKLEFORD, INC., D/B/A

RELCO REFRIGERATION CO., Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 164th District Court

of Harris County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Chavez

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, JOSE A. VILLARREAL, ET AL., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 164th District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 96022377. The clerk's record was filed on September 3, 1999. No reporter's record was filed. Appellants' brief was due on March 15, 2000. To date, no appellate brief has been received.

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On March 24, 2000, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellants were given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. To date, no response has been received from appellants. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants' failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court's notice, appellant's failure to respond, and appellee's motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellee's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 20^th day of April, 2000

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Villareal, Jose A. v. Shackleford, Inc., D/B/A Relco Refrigeration Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villareal-jose-a-v-shackleford-inc-dba-relco-refri-texapp-2000.