Wilson M. Shepard and Daniel L. Shepard v. Prescription Dispensing Laboratories, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Wilson M. Shepard and Daniel L. Shepard v. Prescription Dispensing Laboratories, Inc.

DecidedJuly 28, 2004

Docket04-03-00941-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Wilson M. Shepard and Daniel L. Shepard v. Prescription Dispensing Laboratories, Inc. (Wilson M. Shepard and Daniel L. Shepard v. Prescription Dispensing Laboratories, Inc.) 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

Wilson M. Shepard and Daniel L. Shepard v. Prescription Dispensing Laboratories, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-03-00941-CV Wilson M. SHEPARD and Daniel L. Shepard, Appellants v. PRESCRIPTION DISPENSING LABORATORIES, INC., Appellee From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2002-CI-05928 Honorable Rebecca Simmons, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 28, 2004

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

The trial court clerk filed a notification of late record stating that the clerk's record had not been filed because appellants' attorney told the clerk that the appellants may be unable to pay the fee for preparing the record. On June 24, 2004, we ordered appellants to provide written proof to this court that either (1) the clerk's fee had been paid or arrangements had been made to pay the clerk's fee; or (2) appellants are entitled to appeal without paying the clerk's fee. We informed appellants that if they failed to respond within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellants failed to respond to our order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-03-00941-CV Wilson M. SHEPARD and Daniel L. Shepard, Appellants v. PRESCRIPTION DISPENSING LABORATORIES, INC., Appellee From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2002-CI-05928 Honorable Rebecca Simmons, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 28, 2004

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

The trial court clerk filed a notification of late record stating that the clerk's record had not been filed because appellants' attorney told the clerk that the appellants may be unable to pay the fee for preparing the record. On June 24, 2004, we ordered appellants to provide written proof to this court that either (1) the clerk's fee had been paid or arrangements had been made to pay the clerk's fee; or (2) appellants are entitled to appeal without paying the clerk's fee. We informed appellants that if they failed to respond within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellants failed to respond to our order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wilson M. Shepard and Daniel L. Shepard v. Prescription Dispensing Laboratories, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-m-shepard-and-daniel-l-shepard-v-prescripti-texapp-2004.