Lambert Woodrow Brotemarkle, Jr. v. Dolorese Charlyne Brotemarkle
Lambert Woodrow Brotemarkle, Jr. v. Dolorese Charlyne Brotemarkle
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.