Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2005

Lambert Woodrow Brotemarkle, Jr. v. Dolorese Charlyne Brotemarkle

Lambert Woodrow Brotemarkle, Jr. v. Dolorese Charlyne Brotemarkle
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided August 25, 2005

Lambert Woodrow Brotemarkle, Jr. v. Dolorese Charlyne Brotemarkle

Opinion

In The


Court of Appeals


Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



____________________


NO. 09-04-425 CV

____________________



LAMBERT WOODROW BROTEMARKLE, JR., Appellant



V.



DOLORESE CHARLYNE BROTEMARKLE, Appellee




On Appeal from the 410th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 03-02-01211-CV




MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 19, 2005, the appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8 and 42.3. The appellant did not respond to the motion. The appellant failed to file a brief or a motion for extension of time. There being no satisfactory explanation for the failure to timely file the brief, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8 and 42.3. Costs are assessed against appellant.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

____________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice



Opinion Delivered August 25, 2005

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.