Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2005

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

Wallis Energy, Inc. v. Hamm & Phillips Service Co.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided April 7, 2005

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

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.



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