Mechelle Lang v. Peltier Chevrolet, Inc.
Mechelle Lang v. Peltier Chevrolet, Inc.
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-10-00068-CV
______________________________
MECHELLE LANG, Appellant
V.
PELTIER CHEVROLET, INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 7th Judicial District Court
Smith County, Texas
Trial Court No. 09-2711-C/A
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mechelle Lang filed her notice of appeal from the trial court’s order of summary judgment on June 29, 2010.[1]
The clerk’s record was filed July 30, 2010. No reporter’s record was filed in this appeal. The appellant’s brief was therefore due on or before August 30, 2010. When neither a brief nor a motion to extend time for filing the same had been filed by September 24, 2010, we contacted appellant’s counsel by letter and informed them that if a brief had not been filed by October 12, 2010, the appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).
We have received no communication from counsel. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: October 28, 2010
Date Decided: October 29, 2010
[1]Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005).
was before the trial court at the time the ruling was made, then we must uphold the judgment."
12. The Texas Supreme Court has held in civil cases that disqualification of counsel may only occur when "the matters embraced within the pending suit are substantially related to the factual matters involved in the previous suit . . . . Sustaining this burden requires evidence of specific similarities capable of being recited in the disqualification order. If this burden can be met, the moving party is entitled to a conclusive presumption that confidences and secrets were imparted to the former attorney." NCNB Tex. Nat'l Bank v. Coker, 765 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tex. 1989) (citations omitted).
13. Admittedly, Texas is not the only state to require a showing of a due process violation. See Landers, 256 S.W.3d 295 (summarizing other jurisdictions with similar holdings).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.