Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2006

McKinley Darden, Jr. v. Aluminum Company of America

McKinley Darden, Jr. v. Aluminum Company of America
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided March 2, 2006

McKinley Darden, Jr. v. Aluminum Company of America

Opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

                             NUMBER 13-04-508-CV

 

                         COURT OF APPEALS

 

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

__________________________________________________________________

 

McKINLEY DARDEN, JR., ET AL.,                              Appellants,

 

                                           v.

 

ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL.,               Appellees.

__________________________________________________________________

 

                  On appeal from the 117th District Court

                           of Nueces County, Texas.

__________________________________________________________________

 

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

                Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

 


Appellants, McKINLEY DARDEN, JR., ET AL., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the  117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 04-3822-B.  The clerk=s record was filed on October 25, 2005.  No reporter=s record was filed.  Appellants= brief was due on November 28, 2005.  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 January 13, 2006, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).  Appellants were 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, appellants= failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court=s notice, and appellants= 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 2nd day of March, 2006

 

 

 

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