Wade v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Court of Appeals of Texas

Wade v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

252 S.W.3d 425, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 3289, 2004 WL 745128

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 8, 2004

Docket01-04-00076-CV

StatusPublished

This text of 252 S.W.3d 425 (Wade v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline) 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

Wade v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 252 S.W.3d 425, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 3289, 2004 WL 745128 (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Jerome K. Wade has neither established indigence, nor paid all the required fees. See TexR.App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless indigent), 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041 *426 (Vernon Supp.2004) (listing fees in court of appeals); Fees Civ. Cases B(l), (3) (listing fees in court of appeals). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant Jerome K. Wade did not adequately respond. See Tex.R.App. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule); 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case).

The appeal is dismissed for nonpayment of all required fees. All pending motions are denied.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Jerome K. Wade has neither established indigence, nor paid all the required fees. See TexR.App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless indigent), 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041 *426 (Vernon Supp.2004) (listing fees in court of appeals); Fees Civ. Cases B(l), (3) (listing fees in court of appeals). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant Jerome K. Wade did not adequately respond. See Tex.R.App. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule); 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case).

The appeal is dismissed for nonpayment of all required fees. All pending motions are denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 S.W.3d 425, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 3289, 2004 WL 745128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wade-v-commission-for-lawyer-discipline-texapp-2004.