Villarreal v. Hernandez

943 S.W.2d 101, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 1228, 1997 WL 108977
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 12, 1997·No. No. 04-96-00931-CV·Published

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

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

943 S.W.2d 101 (Villarreal v. Hernandez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Seminole, Inc. v. Oak Hollow Property Owners' Ass'n
669 S.W.2d 872 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Malone v. State Bar of Texas
750 S.W.2d 295 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1988)