Villarreal v. Hernandez

Court of Appeals of Texas

Villarreal v. Hernandez

943 S.W.2d 101, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 1228, 1997 WL 108977

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 12, 1997

DocketNo. 04-96-00931-CV

StatusPublished

This text of 943 S.W.2d 101 (Villarreal v. Hernandez) 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

Villarreal v. Hernandez, 943 S.W.2d 101, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 1228, 1997 WL 108977 (Tex. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because it appeared that appellant, Irma Letty Villarreal, had abandoned this appeal by failing to file a brief or motion for extension of time, we ordered her to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed. See Tex.R.App. P 74(l )(1). In a timely filed response, Villarreal stated that she wished to pursue this appeal but believed a brief was unnecessary because the sole issue decided [102]*102by the underlying summary judgment was the applicability of chapter 81 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. Villarreal contends this is a “straightforward, single-issue appeal,” yet she also contends this matter is one of “first impression” in an “emerging area of law.”

The appellee, Hugo Hernandez, M.D., filed a motion for affirmance or dismissal under Tex.R.App. P 74(7 )(1), arguing that Villarreal’s explanation is unreasonable. We agree. Without a brief containing assigned error, we have nothing to review on appeal.

Because Villarreal’s explanation is unreasonable, we dismiss this appeal. Tex.R.App. P 74(i)(l); see also Malone v. State Bar of Texas, 750 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1988, no writ); Seminole, Inc. v. Oak Hollow Property Owners’ Ass’n, 669 S.W.2d 872, 872 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1984, no writ).

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

PER CURIAM.

Because it appeared that appellant, Irma Letty Villarreal, had abandoned this appeal by failing to file a brief or motion for extension of time, we ordered her to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed. See Tex.R.App. P 74(l )(1). In a timely filed response, Villarreal stated that she wished to pursue this appeal but believed a brief was unnecessary because the sole issue decided [102]*102by the underlying summary judgment was the applicability of chapter 81 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. Villarreal contends this is a “straightforward, single-issue appeal,” yet she also contends this matter is one of “first impression” in an “emerging area of law.”

The appellee, Hugo Hernandez, M.D., filed a motion for affirmance or dismissal under Tex.R.App. P 74(7 )(1), arguing that Villarreal’s explanation is unreasonable. We agree. Without a brief containing assigned error, we have nothing to review on appeal.

Because Villarreal’s explanation is unreasonable, we dismiss this appeal. Tex.R.App. P 74(i)(l); see also Malone v. State Bar of Texas, 750 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1988, no writ); Seminole, Inc. v. Oak Hollow Property Owners’ Ass’n, 669 S.W.2d 872, 872 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1984, no writ).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

943 S.W.2d 101, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 1228, 1997 WL 108977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villarreal-v-hernandez-texapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack