Wallis Energy, Inc. v. Hamm & Phillips Service Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Wallis Energy, Inc. v. Hamm & Phillips Service Co.

DecidedApril 7, 2005

Docket13-04-00517-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Wallis Energy, Inc. v. Hamm & Phillips Service Co. (Wallis Energy, Inc. v. Hamm & Phillips Service 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

Wallis Energy, Inc. v. Hamm & Phillips Service Co., (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-04-517-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

WALLIS ENERGY, INC., Appellant,

v.

HAMM & PHILLIPS SERVICE CO., Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, WALLIS ENERGY, INC., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 3 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 02-61910-3. The clerk’s record was filed on October 18, 2004. No reporter’s record was filed. Appellant’s brief was due on November 17, 2004. 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 February 18, 2005, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant was 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.

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

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 7th day of April, 2005.

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

NUMBER 13-04-517-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

WALLIS ENERGY, INC., Appellant,

v.

HAMM & PHILLIPS SERVICE CO., Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, WALLIS ENERGY, INC., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 3 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 02-61910-3. The clerk’s record was filed on October 18, 2004. No reporter’s record was filed. Appellant’s brief was due on November 17, 2004. 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 February 18, 2005, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant was 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.

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

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 7th day of April, 2005.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wallis Energy, Inc. v. Hamm & Phillips Service Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallis-energy-inc-v-hamm-phillips-service-co-texapp-2005.