L. Diane Wells v. Joe McCurry--Appeal from 33rd District Court of Burnet CountyDISMISSED ON APPELLANT'S MOTION: Opinion by Chief Justice Law [ PDF ] (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop)
03-07-00227-CV
L. Diane Wells v. Joe McCurry--Appeal from 33rd District Court of Burnet County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY, 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 30240-A, HONORABLE GUILFORD L. JONES III, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant L. Diane Wells has filed a motion to dismiss her appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.
W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: July 2, 2008
Showing posts with label dismissals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dismissals. Show all posts
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Cedars Entertainment, L.P. v. Wynona J. Winters as Trustee of Barnett 2005 Family Trust--Appeal from 35th District Court of Mills CountyDISMISSED ON APPELLANT'S MOTION: Opinion by Justice Waldrop [ PDF ] (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson)
03-07-00378-CV
Cedars Entertainment, L.P. v. Wynona J. Winters as Trustee of Barnett 2005 Family Trust--Appeal from 35th District Court of Mills County
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Cedars Entertainment, L.P. has filed its Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: June 19, 2008
03-07-00378-CV
Cedars Entertainment, L.P. v. Wynona J. Winters as Trustee of Barnett 2005 Family Trust--Appeal from 35th District Court of Mills County
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Cedars Entertainment, L.P. has filed its Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: June 19, 2008
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Joint Agreed Motion to Dismiss ends appeal
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The parties to this case have filed a joint agreed motion to dismiss the appeal based on a settlement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). The motion informs the Court that an order entered by the Commissioner of Insurance on May 12, 2008, has resolved the dispute. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. Id.
W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop
Dismissed on Joint Motion
Filed: May 28, 2008
DISMISSED ON JOINT MOTION: Opinion by Chief Justice Law (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop)
03-07-00195-CV
Allstate Texas Lloyd's v. Texas Department of Insurance; Mike Geeslin, as Commissioner of Insurance; and Office of Public Insurance Counsel--Appeal from 53rd District Court of Travis County
The parties to this case have filed a joint agreed motion to dismiss the appeal based on a settlement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). The motion informs the Court that an order entered by the Commissioner of Insurance on May 12, 2008, has resolved the dispute. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. Id.
W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop
Dismissed on Joint Motion
Filed: May 28, 2008
DISMISSED ON JOINT MOTION: Opinion by Chief Justice Law (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop)
03-07-00195-CV
Allstate Texas Lloyd's v. Texas Department of Insurance; Mike Geeslin, as Commissioner of Insurance; and Office of Public Insurance Counsel--Appeal from 53rd District Court of Travis County
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Notice of Appeal was untimely - Dismissed
Daniel Romon Quiroz v. The State of Texas (Tex.App.- Austin, Jan. 18, 2007) (Opinion by Justice Patterson) (Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson)
03-07-00738-CR
Daniel Romon Quiroz v. The State of Texas
Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 of Travis County
Dispostion: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On July 1, 2002, in cause number C-1-CR-01-574616, Daniel Romon Quiroz pleaded guilty to possessing marihuana. The trial court adjudged him guilty and assessed punishment at 120 days in jail. In assessing punishment, the court took into consideration Quiroz's admission of guilt in cause number C-1-CR-01-589507, in which he was accused of deadly conduct. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.45 (West 2003).
On November 13, 2007, Quiroz filed a pro se notice of out of time appeal in each cause. There is no conviction to appeal in cause number C-1-CR-01-589507. The notice of appeal in cause number C-1-CR-01-574616 was untimely. We lack jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeals in any manner other than by dismissing them for want of jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App.1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
The appeals are dismissed.
__________________________________________
Jan P. Patterson, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: January 18, 2008
Do Not Publish
03-07-00738-CR
Daniel Romon Quiroz v. The State of Texas
Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 of Travis County
Dispostion: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On July 1, 2002, in cause number C-1-CR-01-574616, Daniel Romon Quiroz pleaded guilty to possessing marihuana. The trial court adjudged him guilty and assessed punishment at 120 days in jail. In assessing punishment, the court took into consideration Quiroz's admission of guilt in cause number C-1-CR-01-589507, in which he was accused of deadly conduct. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.45 (West 2003).
On November 13, 2007, Quiroz filed a pro se notice of out of time appeal in each cause. There is no conviction to appeal in cause number C-1-CR-01-589507. The notice of appeal in cause number C-1-CR-01-574616 was untimely. We lack jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeals in any manner other than by dismissing them for want of jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App.1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
The appeals are dismissed.
__________________________________________
Jan P. Patterson, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: January 18, 2008
Do Not Publish
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Capital Pacific Holdings, LLC; Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc.; and Clark Wilson Homes, Inc. d/b/a Capital Pacific Homes and Capital Pacific Homes, Inc. v. Darryl E. Atkinson and Kari Branch, No. 03-07-00124-CV (Tex. App.- Austin, Nov. 16, 2007)(Opinion by Chief Justice Law) (dismissal on appellant's motion after settlement) (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson)
Appeal from 53rd District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-07-000404, HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellants Capital Pacific Holdings, LLC; Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc.; and Clark Wilson Homes, Inc. d/b/a Capital Pacific Homes and Capital Pacific Homes, Inc. no longer wish to pursue their appeal and have filed an unopposed motion to dismiss it pursuant to their settlement agreement with appellees Darryl E. Atkinson and Kari Branch. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).
__________________________________________
W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Dismissed on Appellants' Motion
Filed: November 16, 2007
Appeal from 53rd District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-07-000404, HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellants Capital Pacific Holdings, LLC; Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc.; and Clark Wilson Homes, Inc. d/b/a Capital Pacific Homes and Capital Pacific Homes, Inc. no longer wish to pursue their appeal and have filed an unopposed motion to dismiss it pursuant to their settlement agreement with appellees Darryl E. Atkinson and Kari Branch. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).
__________________________________________
W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Dismissed on Appellants' Motion
Filed: November 16, 2007
Appellee's Sanctions Request Denied - Dismissal Granted
Jose Fernandez Galan Palau v. Flor De Maria Navarro Sanchez, No. 03-07-00499-CV (Tex.App.- Austin, Nov. 16, 2007) (Opinion by Justice Puryear)(opposed motion to dismiss by appllant, sanctions to appellee denied)(Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton)
Appeal from 353rd District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-FM-06-002234, HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal, stating that the trial court's later ruling rendered the appeal moot. Appellee, who earlier filed a motion seeking to have the appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction, has filed a motion opposing the dismissal of the appeal until we assess sanctions against appellant. We overrule appellee's motion for sanctions, but will assess all costs on appeal against appellant. We grant appellant's motion and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2). We further grant Susan Norman's emergency motion to withdraw as appellant's counsel, leaving appellant's additional retained attorney, Andres P. Chaumont, as counsel.
___________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: November 16, 2007
Appeal from 353rd District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-FM-06-002234, HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal, stating that the trial court's later ruling rendered the appeal moot. Appellee, who earlier filed a motion seeking to have the appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction, has filed a motion opposing the dismissal of the appeal until we assess sanctions against appellant. We overrule appellee's motion for sanctions, but will assess all costs on appeal against appellant. We grant appellant's motion and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2). We further grant Susan Norman's emergency motion to withdraw as appellant's counsel, leaving appellant's additional retained attorney, Andres P. Chaumont, as counsel.
___________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: November 16, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
Frederic A. Gladle v. Dustin Leifheit, Samantha Leifheit and Darryl Leifheit, No. 03-07-00027-CV (Oct. 24, 2007)(Opinion by Chief Justice Law)(Dismissal upon request of appellant)(Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton)
Appeal from 345th District Court of Travis County
THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-06-003026, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING
NO. 03-07-00028-CV
Frederic A. Gladle Management Trust; Frederic A. Gladle Living Trust;
Barbara E. Gladle; Barbara Lynne Gladle Management Trust; Barbara Lynne Gladle Living Trust; Alan Lynne Family Trust; LT Entertainment Center, LP; LT Entertainment Group, LLC; Alan Lynne Family Partnership; Meriport Capital, Inc.; and Train, Inc., Appellants
v.
Dustin Leifheit, Samantha Leifheit and Darryl Leifheit,
Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-06-003987, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
These appeals were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument, if any. Appellants have now moved to dismiss each appeal because the parties have settled. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). The motion is unopposed and the parties have asked that the costs be taxed against the party incurring same. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeals.
W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton
Dismissed on Appellants' Motion
Filed: October 24, 2007
DISMISSED ON APPELLANT'S MOTION: Opinion by Chief Justice Law (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton)
03-07-00028-CV
Frederic A. Gladle Management Trust; Frederic A. Gladle Living Trust; Barbara E. Gladle; Barbara Lynne Gladle Management Trust; Barbara Lynne Gladle Living Trust; Alan Lynne Family Trust; LT Entertainment Center, LP; LT Entertainment Group, LLC, et al. v. Dustin Leifheit, Samantha Leifheit and Darryl Leifheit--Appeal from 98th District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-06-003987, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
These appeals were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument, if any. Appellants have now moved to dismiss each appeal because the parties have settled. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). The motion is unopposed and the parties have asked that the costs be taxed against the party incurring same. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeals.
W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton
Dismissed on Appellants' Motion
Filed: October 24, 2007
Appeal from 345th District Court of Travis County
THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-06-003026, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING
NO. 03-07-00028-CV
Frederic A. Gladle Management Trust; Frederic A. Gladle Living Trust;
Barbara E. Gladle; Barbara Lynne Gladle Management Trust; Barbara Lynne Gladle Living Trust; Alan Lynne Family Trust; LT Entertainment Center, LP; LT Entertainment Group, LLC; Alan Lynne Family Partnership; Meriport Capital, Inc.; and Train, Inc., Appellants
v.
Dustin Leifheit, Samantha Leifheit and Darryl Leifheit,
Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-06-003987, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
These appeals were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument, if any. Appellants have now moved to dismiss each appeal because the parties have settled. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). The motion is unopposed and the parties have asked that the costs be taxed against the party incurring same. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeals.
W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton
Dismissed on Appellants' Motion
Filed: October 24, 2007
DISMISSED ON APPELLANT'S MOTION: Opinion by Chief Justice Law (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton)
03-07-00028-CV
Frederic A. Gladle Management Trust; Frederic A. Gladle Living Trust; Barbara E. Gladle; Barbara Lynne Gladle Management Trust; Barbara Lynne Gladle Living Trust; Alan Lynne Family Trust; LT Entertainment Center, LP; LT Entertainment Group, LLC, et al. v. Dustin Leifheit, Samantha Leifheit and Darryl Leifheit--Appeal from 98th District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-06-003987, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
These appeals were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument, if any. Appellants have now moved to dismiss each appeal because the parties have settled. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). The motion is unopposed and the parties have asked that the costs be taxed against the party incurring same. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeals.
W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton
Dismissed on Appellants' Motion
Filed: October 24, 2007
Laser Scientific, LLC v. Mahmudur Chowdhury and KBM Emran d/b/a SLC of Richmond a/k/a Sona Medspa, No. 03-07-00312-CV (Oct. 22, 2007)(voluntary dismissal)(Opinion by Justice Henson )(Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson)Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 of Travis County
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. C-1-CV-06-008049, HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Laser Scientific, LLC filed a motion requesting that this appeal be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
_____________________________________
Diane Henson, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: October 22, 2007
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. C-1-CV-06-008049, HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Laser Scientific, LLC filed a motion requesting that this appeal be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
_____________________________________
Diane Henson, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: October 22, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Delagarza v. Texas DFPS (Tex.App.- Austin, Sep. 24, 2007)
DISMISSED ON APPELLANT'S MOTION: Opinion by Justice Henson (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson)
03-07-00349-CV
Pablo Delagarza, Jr. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services--Appeal from 20th District Court of Milam County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 31,385, HONORABLE EDWARD P. MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Pablo Delagarza, Jr. filed a motion requesting that his appeal be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
Diane Henson, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: September 24, 2007
DISMISSED ON APPELLANT'S MOTION: Opinion by Justice Henson (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson)
03-07-00349-CV
Pablo Delagarza, Jr. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services--Appeal from 20th District Court of Milam County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 31,385, HONORABLE EDWARD P. MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Pablo Delagarza, Jr. filed a motion requesting that his appeal be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
Diane Henson, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: September 24, 2007
Mason v. Mason (Tex.App.- Austin, Sep. 24, 2007)
DISMISSED ON APPELLANT'S MOTION Opinion by Justice Waldrop (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson)
03-06-00679-CV
Monica Mason v. John Mason--Appeal from 126th District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-FM-04-006244, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Monica Mason has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss her appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: September 24, 2007
DISMISSED ON APPELLANT'S MOTION Opinion by Justice Waldrop (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson)
03-06-00679-CV
Monica Mason v. John Mason--Appeal from 126th District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-FM-04-006244, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Monica Mason has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss her appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: September 24, 2007
PUC Appeal dismissed by agreement
DISMISSED ON AGREED MOTION: Opinion by Justice Waldrop (Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Waldrop)
03-06-00552-CV
Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas
Appeal from of County
DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N [Tex.App.- Austin, Sep, 21, 2007]
The parties have filed an Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal. This cause was previously abated. We reinstate the appeal, grant the Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal, dismiss all other pending motions, and dismiss this appeal.
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Waldrop
Dismissed on Agreed Motion
Filed: September 21, 2007
03-06-00552-CV
Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas
Appeal from of County
DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N [Tex.App.- Austin, Sep, 21, 2007]
The parties have filed an Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal. This cause was previously abated. We reinstate the appeal, grant the Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal, dismiss all other pending motions, and dismiss this appeal.
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Waldrop
Dismissed on Agreed Motion
Filed: September 21, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Appeal against state withdrawn
Amr A. Abdelazeem v. The State of Texas, No. 03-07-00504-CR (Tex.App.- Austin, Sep. 19, 2007)(Opinion by Justice Puryear)(voluntary dismissal)(Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton)
Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 of Bell County
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF BELL COUNTY
NO. TE0703626, HONORABLE JOHN MISCHTAIN, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant's motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). The appeal is dismissed.
__________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: September 20, 2007
Do Not Publish
Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 of Bell County
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF BELL COUNTY
NO. TE0703626, HONORABLE JOHN MISCHTAIN, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant's motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). The appeal is dismissed.
__________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: September 20, 2007
Do Not Publish
Laywer's appeal from contempt order dismissed for want of jurisdiction
In re Shane Brooks, No. 03-07-00442-CR (Tex.App.- Sep. 19, 2007)(Opinion by Justice Waldrop)(DWOJ)(Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson)
Appeal from 277th District Court of Williamson County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 07-263-C277, HONORABLE H. R. TOWSLEE, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Shane Brooks seeks to appeal an order holding him in contempt for his conduct as counsel during the trial of cause number 07-185-K277, State of Texas v. Seneka Deray Johnson, in the 277th District Court of Williamson County. Brooks's counsel was asked to submit a letter explaining this Court's jurisdiction to consider the appeal. There was no response to this request.
A court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review a contempt order on direct appeal. Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 587 n.3 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1994, orig. proceeding) (citing Ex parte Eureste, 725 S.W.2d 214, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); see Tracy v. Tracy, No. 05-05-01574-CV, 2007 WL806358 at *2 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2007, no pet.) (citing Texas Animal Health Comm'n v. Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952 Tex. 1983). The appropriate remedy is by original writ of habeas corpus. Eureste, 725 S.W.2d at 216. This Court does not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal cases. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(d) (West 2004).
The appeal is dismissed.
___________________________________________
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: September 20, 2007
Do Not Publish
Appeal from 277th District Court of Williamson County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 07-263-C277, HONORABLE H. R. TOWSLEE, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Shane Brooks seeks to appeal an order holding him in contempt for his conduct as counsel during the trial of cause number 07-185-K277, State of Texas v. Seneka Deray Johnson, in the 277th District Court of Williamson County. Brooks's counsel was asked to submit a letter explaining this Court's jurisdiction to consider the appeal. There was no response to this request.
A court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review a contempt order on direct appeal. Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 587 n.3 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1994, orig. proceeding) (citing Ex parte Eureste, 725 S.W.2d 214, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); see Tracy v. Tracy, No. 05-05-01574-CV, 2007 WL806358 at *2 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2007, no pet.) (citing Texas Animal Health Comm'n v. Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952 Tex. 1983). The appropriate remedy is by original writ of habeas corpus. Eureste, 725 S.W.2d at 216. This Court does not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal cases. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(d) (West 2004).
The appeal is dismissed.
___________________________________________
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: September 20, 2007
Do Not Publish
PUC moots appeal by amending rule at issue in litigation
City of Garland, Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, No. 03-06-00571-CV (Tex.App.- Austin, Sep. 19, 2007)(mootness dismissal)
Direct Appeal from of
DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The Public Utility Commission of Texas has filed an Unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Mootness. This cause was abated on July 13, 2007 in order to allow the Commission to consider amending the rule at issue. The rule has been amended. We reinstate this appeal, grant the motion, and dismiss this appeal.
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Waldrop
Dismissed
Filed: September 19, 2007
Direct Appeal from of
DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The Public Utility Commission of Texas has filed an Unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Mootness. This cause was abated on July 13, 2007 in order to allow the Commission to consider amending the rule at issue. The rule has been amended. We reinstate this appeal, grant the motion, and dismiss this appeal.
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Waldrop
Dismissed
Filed: September 19, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Inmate's suit erroneously dismissed with prejudice
Since merits were not reached, dismissal should have been without prejudice. Austin appeals court modifies judgment, and affirms. Hunt v. Travis County District Clerk
Stan Hunt vs. Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza, Travis County District Clerk, No. 03-06-00117-CV (Tex.App.- Austin, Aug. 30, 2007)(Opinion by Justice Pemberton)(Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop)
Appeal from 98th District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. GN501768, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
We withdraw our opinion dated July 11, 2007, and substitute the following in its place. We overrule Hunt's motion for rehearing.
Stan Hunt appeals from the district court's dismissal of his lawsuit against Travis County District Clerk Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza for failure to comply with chapter 14 of the civil practice and remedies code, which governs inmate litigation. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.001-.014 (West 2002).
In four issues on appeal, Hunt claims that he was denied his right to a hearing on the dismissal, alleges that the district court interfered with his compliance with the statute, asserts that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the dismissal, and contends that his case should not have been dismissed with prejudice. We reform the judgment to reflect that the dismissal was without prejudice. As reformed, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Hunt is an inmate confined in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. In May 2005, Hunt filed suit against Rodriguez-Mendoza, primarily alleging that he was being denied access to court records maintained by the Travis County District Clerk's Office. Hunt filed with his petition an affidavit of his inability to pay court costs and a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Chapter 14 of the civil practice and remedies code applies to a suit brought by an inmate in a district, county, justice of the peace, or small claims court in which an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs is filed by the inmate. See id. § 14.002(a). In accordance with section 14.004(a), Hunt filed a "Declaration of Previous Litigation," in which he listed 42 previously filed lawsuits. See id. § 14.004(a) (West 2002). Pursuant to section 14.006(f), Hunt was also required to file a certified copy of "the inmate's trust account statement." See id. §§ 14.004(c), .006(f) (West 2002). The statement is required because money is withdrawn from the inmate's trust account in order to pay for court fees, court costs, and other costs, and the statement indicates the amount that is available to be withdrawn. See id. § 14.006(a), (e), (f).
However, the record does not reflect that Hunt filed such a statement.
On November 14, 2005, Rodriguez-Mendoza filed a motion to dismiss the suit, alleging that Hunt failed to comply with the requirements of chapter 14. Specifically, Rodriguez-Mendoza claimed that Hunt neglected to mention that one of his previous lawsuits had been dismissed as frivolous, see id. § 14.004(a)(2)(D) (requiring that inmate "describe[] each suit that was previously brought by . . . stating the result of the suit, including whether the suit was dismissed as frivolous or malicious under Section 13.001 or Section 14.003 or otherwise."), and that Hunt failed to file a certified copy of his trust account statement. See id. § 14.004(c) ("The affidavit or unsworn declaration [of inability to pay costs] must be accompanied by the certified copy of the trust account statement required by Section 14.006(f).").
A hearing on the motion to dismiss was set for December 2, 2005. On that date, the district court granted the motion to dismiss. The district court's order specified that the dismissal was "with prejudice." Three days later, on December 5, Hunt filed a response to the motion to dismiss and a "Motion for Telephone Conference Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss." The motion was overruled by operation of law. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Right to hearing
In his first issue, Hunt asserts that the district court abused its discretion by "implicitly denying" his "timely request to appear by telephone conference at the scheduled dismissal hearing." In lawsuits filed under chapter 14, the district court's decision to hold a hearing prior to dismissal is discretionary. See id. § 14.003(c) ("In determining whether [to dismiss a claim], the court may hold a hearing." (emphasis added)); Thomas v. Wichita Gen. Hosp., 952 S.W.2d 936, 938 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1997, pet. denied). No abuse of discretion is shown when the inmate does not demonstrate that there is evidence that he would have presented at the hearing. See Hall v. Treon, 39 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2001, no pet.); Thomas, 952 S.W.2d at 938. In his "Motion for Telephone Conference Hearing," Hunt failed to demonstrate that he had specific evidence to present of compliance with chapter 14. On this record we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hunt's motion to appear at the hearing by telephone conference. We overrule Hunt's first issue.
The district court's alleged interference
In his second issue, Hunt alleges that the district court prevented him from complying with chapter 14. Specifically, Hunt asserts that he sent a copy of his inmate trust account statement to various district court officials both before and after the filing of his current lawsuit, but that these officials "refused" to file the statement. Hunt references no competent evidence that would support this claim, and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding otherwise. We overrule Hunt's second issue.
Dismissal for failure to comply with chapter 14
In his third issue, Hunt asserts that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his lawsuit. The trial court has broad discretion to dismiss a suit brought pursuant to chapter 14, and we review that dismissal under an abuse of discretion standard. White v. State, 37 S.W.3d 562, 563 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2001, no pet.); McCollum v. Mt. Ararat Baptist Church, 980 S.W.2d 535, 536 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner or acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241 (Tex. 1985). A clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly also constitutes an abuse of discretion. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992).
In her motion to dismiss, Rodriguez-Mendoza alleged two independent grounds on which the district court could have based its dismissal. First, Rodriguez-Mendoza alleged that Hunt omitted information stating that one of his previous lawsuits had been dismissed as frivolous. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.004(a)(2)(D). Second, Rodriguez-Mendoza alleged that Hunt failed to file a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement. See id. §§ 14.004(c), .006(f). We need not consider the former contention, because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Hunt failed to file a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement. The district court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing a suit for failure to comply with the procedural requirements of chapter 14. See Scott v. Gallagher, 209 S.W.3d 262, 265 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Williams v. Brown, 33 S.W.3d 410, 412 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). We overrule Hunt's third issue.
Prejudice
In his fourth issue, Hunt contends that the district court erred in dismissing his case
with prejudice. Dismissal with prejudice functions as a final determination on the merits of a case. Mossler v. Shields, 818 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Tex. 1991); Barcroft v. County of Fannin, 118 S.W.3d 922, 927 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2003, pet. denied). A dismissal for failure to comply with the rules governing the filing of suits brought pursuant to chapter 14 is not a ruling on the merits. Hughes v. Massey, 65 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2001, no pet.). Therefore, the dismissal in this case should have been without prejudice. Lentworth v. Trahan, 981 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.). We sustain Hunt's fourth issue.
CONCLUSION
We overrule Hunt's first, second, and third issues and sustain his fourth issue. (1)
Accordingly, we reform the judgment to provide that the cause is dismissed without prejudice. As reformed, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
_____________________________________
Bob Pemberton, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop
Reformed and, as reformed, affirmed on Motion for Rehearing
Filed: August 29, 2007
1. Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, Hunt filed with this Court a "Motion to Take Judicial Notice." In the motion, Hunt lists various rules, statutes, cases, and alleged facts related to this proceeding and Hunt's previous lawsuits and asks this Court to take "judicial notice" of these items. An appellate court's decision to take judicial notice of a fact on appeal is generally discretionary. Tran v. Fiorenza, 934 S.W.2d 740, 742-43 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ); Martinez v. City of San Antonio, 768 S.W.2d 911, 914-15 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1989, no writ) (citing Wellborn, Judicial Notice Under Article II of the Texas Rules of Evidence, 19 St. Mary's L.J. 1, 20 (1987)). To be the proper subject of judicial notice, a fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute and "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. Public Util. Comm'n, 878 S.W.2d 598, 600 (Tex. 1994) (quoting Tex. R. Evid. 201(b)). Furthermore, the requesting party must supply the court with the necessary information. Id. (quoting Tex. R. Evid. 201(d)). We have considered the items in Hunt's motion and determined that: (1) many of the items are not the proper subject of judicial notice; (2) other items contain either incomplete or inaccurate information; and (3) none of the items affect our resolution of the specific issues Hunt raised on appeal. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion and deny Hunt's motion.
Stan Hunt vs. Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza, Travis County District Clerk, No. 03-06-00117-CV (Tex.App.- Austin, Aug. 30, 2007)(Opinion by Justice Pemberton)(Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop)
Appeal from 98th District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. GN501768, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
We withdraw our opinion dated July 11, 2007, and substitute the following in its place. We overrule Hunt's motion for rehearing.
Stan Hunt appeals from the district court's dismissal of his lawsuit against Travis County District Clerk Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza for failure to comply with chapter 14 of the civil practice and remedies code, which governs inmate litigation. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.001-.014 (West 2002).
In four issues on appeal, Hunt claims that he was denied his right to a hearing on the dismissal, alleges that the district court interfered with his compliance with the statute, asserts that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the dismissal, and contends that his case should not have been dismissed with prejudice. We reform the judgment to reflect that the dismissal was without prejudice. As reformed, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Hunt is an inmate confined in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. In May 2005, Hunt filed suit against Rodriguez-Mendoza, primarily alleging that he was being denied access to court records maintained by the Travis County District Clerk's Office. Hunt filed with his petition an affidavit of his inability to pay court costs and a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Chapter 14 of the civil practice and remedies code applies to a suit brought by an inmate in a district, county, justice of the peace, or small claims court in which an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs is filed by the inmate. See id. § 14.002(a). In accordance with section 14.004(a), Hunt filed a "Declaration of Previous Litigation," in which he listed 42 previously filed lawsuits. See id. § 14.004(a) (West 2002). Pursuant to section 14.006(f), Hunt was also required to file a certified copy of "the inmate's trust account statement." See id. §§ 14.004(c), .006(f) (West 2002). The statement is required because money is withdrawn from the inmate's trust account in order to pay for court fees, court costs, and other costs, and the statement indicates the amount that is available to be withdrawn. See id. § 14.006(a), (e), (f).
However, the record does not reflect that Hunt filed such a statement.
On November 14, 2005, Rodriguez-Mendoza filed a motion to dismiss the suit, alleging that Hunt failed to comply with the requirements of chapter 14. Specifically, Rodriguez-Mendoza claimed that Hunt neglected to mention that one of his previous lawsuits had been dismissed as frivolous, see id. § 14.004(a)(2)(D) (requiring that inmate "describe[] each suit that was previously brought by . . . stating the result of the suit, including whether the suit was dismissed as frivolous or malicious under Section 13.001 or Section 14.003 or otherwise."), and that Hunt failed to file a certified copy of his trust account statement. See id. § 14.004(c) ("The affidavit or unsworn declaration [of inability to pay costs] must be accompanied by the certified copy of the trust account statement required by Section 14.006(f).").
A hearing on the motion to dismiss was set for December 2, 2005. On that date, the district court granted the motion to dismiss. The district court's order specified that the dismissal was "with prejudice." Three days later, on December 5, Hunt filed a response to the motion to dismiss and a "Motion for Telephone Conference Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss." The motion was overruled by operation of law. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Right to hearing
In his first issue, Hunt asserts that the district court abused its discretion by "implicitly denying" his "timely request to appear by telephone conference at the scheduled dismissal hearing." In lawsuits filed under chapter 14, the district court's decision to hold a hearing prior to dismissal is discretionary. See id. § 14.003(c) ("In determining whether [to dismiss a claim], the court may hold a hearing." (emphasis added)); Thomas v. Wichita Gen. Hosp., 952 S.W.2d 936, 938 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1997, pet. denied). No abuse of discretion is shown when the inmate does not demonstrate that there is evidence that he would have presented at the hearing. See Hall v. Treon, 39 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2001, no pet.); Thomas, 952 S.W.2d at 938. In his "Motion for Telephone Conference Hearing," Hunt failed to demonstrate that he had specific evidence to present of compliance with chapter 14. On this record we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hunt's motion to appear at the hearing by telephone conference. We overrule Hunt's first issue.
The district court's alleged interference
In his second issue, Hunt alleges that the district court prevented him from complying with chapter 14. Specifically, Hunt asserts that he sent a copy of his inmate trust account statement to various district court officials both before and after the filing of his current lawsuit, but that these officials "refused" to file the statement. Hunt references no competent evidence that would support this claim, and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding otherwise. We overrule Hunt's second issue.
Dismissal for failure to comply with chapter 14
In his third issue, Hunt asserts that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his lawsuit. The trial court has broad discretion to dismiss a suit brought pursuant to chapter 14, and we review that dismissal under an abuse of discretion standard. White v. State, 37 S.W.3d 562, 563 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2001, no pet.); McCollum v. Mt. Ararat Baptist Church, 980 S.W.2d 535, 536 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner or acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241 (Tex. 1985). A clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly also constitutes an abuse of discretion. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992).
In her motion to dismiss, Rodriguez-Mendoza alleged two independent grounds on which the district court could have based its dismissal. First, Rodriguez-Mendoza alleged that Hunt omitted information stating that one of his previous lawsuits had been dismissed as frivolous. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.004(a)(2)(D). Second, Rodriguez-Mendoza alleged that Hunt failed to file a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement. See id. §§ 14.004(c), .006(f). We need not consider the former contention, because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Hunt failed to file a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement. The district court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing a suit for failure to comply with the procedural requirements of chapter 14. See Scott v. Gallagher, 209 S.W.3d 262, 265 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Williams v. Brown, 33 S.W.3d 410, 412 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). We overrule Hunt's third issue.
Prejudice
In his fourth issue, Hunt contends that the district court erred in dismissing his case
with prejudice. Dismissal with prejudice functions as a final determination on the merits of a case. Mossler v. Shields, 818 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Tex. 1991); Barcroft v. County of Fannin, 118 S.W.3d 922, 927 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2003, pet. denied). A dismissal for failure to comply with the rules governing the filing of suits brought pursuant to chapter 14 is not a ruling on the merits. Hughes v. Massey, 65 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2001, no pet.). Therefore, the dismissal in this case should have been without prejudice. Lentworth v. Trahan, 981 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.). We sustain Hunt's fourth issue.
CONCLUSION
We overrule Hunt's first, second, and third issues and sustain his fourth issue. (1)
Accordingly, we reform the judgment to provide that the cause is dismissed without prejudice. As reformed, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
_____________________________________
Bob Pemberton, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop
Reformed and, as reformed, affirmed on Motion for Rehearing
Filed: August 29, 2007
1. Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, Hunt filed with this Court a "Motion to Take Judicial Notice." In the motion, Hunt lists various rules, statutes, cases, and alleged facts related to this proceeding and Hunt's previous lawsuits and asks this Court to take "judicial notice" of these items. An appellate court's decision to take judicial notice of a fact on appeal is generally discretionary. Tran v. Fiorenza, 934 S.W.2d 740, 742-43 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ); Martinez v. City of San Antonio, 768 S.W.2d 911, 914-15 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1989, no writ) (citing Wellborn, Judicial Notice Under Article II of the Texas Rules of Evidence, 19 St. Mary's L.J. 1, 20 (1987)). To be the proper subject of judicial notice, a fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute and "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. Public Util. Comm'n, 878 S.W.2d 598, 600 (Tex. 1994) (quoting Tex. R. Evid. 201(b)). Furthermore, the requesting party must supply the court with the necessary information. Id. (quoting Tex. R. Evid. 201(d)). We have considered the items in Hunt's motion and determined that: (1) many of the items are not the proper subject of judicial notice; (2) other items contain either incomplete or inaccurate information; and (3) none of the items affect our resolution of the specific issues Hunt raised on appeal. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion and deny Hunt's motion.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Tex. Lottery Comm'n takes no chances and drops appeal
Texas Lottery Commission v. First State Bank of DeQueen, Stone Street Capital, Inc. and Cletius L. Irvan (Tex.App.- Aug. 24, 2007)(Opinion by Justice Pemberton)(dismissal on appellant's motion)(Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton)
Appeal from 53rd District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-06-004663, HONORABLE DERWOOD JOHNSON, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Texas Lottery Commission has filed an unopposed motion, seeking a dismissal of its appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).
Bob Pemberton, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: August 24, 2007
Appeal from 53rd District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-06-004663, HONORABLE DERWOOD JOHNSON, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Texas Lottery Commission has filed an unopposed motion, seeking a dismissal of its appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).
Bob Pemberton, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: August 24, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Pierce vs. Austin Edwards Construction - Appeal dismissed
Rodger Pierce a/k/a Roger Pierce v. Mark Edwards d/b/a The Austin Edwards Company and The Austin Edwards Construction Company et al, No. 03-07-00403-CV (Tex.App.- Austin, Aug. 17, 2007)(Opinion by Justice Patterson) (Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton)
Appeal from 98th District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. GN504202, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Rodger Pierce a/k/a Roger Pierce has filed an unopposed motion seeking dismissal of his appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).
Jan P. Patterson, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: August 17, 2007
Appeal from 98th District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. GN504202, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Rodger Pierce a/k/a Roger Pierce has filed an unopposed motion seeking dismissal of his appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).
Jan P. Patterson, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: August 17, 2007
Monday, August 13, 2007
Appeal dismissed; appellant did not pay for clerk's record
Thomas Terry, Jr. and derivatively Cardiac Services of Texas, Inc. and Cardiac Services of Austin, L.P. v. Darrell Sargent; Cardiac Products of Texas, Inc.; Cardiostaff Corporation; and Larry Lawson, No. 03-07-00096-CV (Tex.App.- Austin, Aug. 13, 2007)(Opinion by Justice Henson)(Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson)
Appeal from 98th District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRHONORABLE W. JEANNE MEURER, JUDGE PRESIDING
ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN304065,
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellants filed a notice of appeal in the trial court on February 7, 2007; the notice was filed in this Court on February 9. On March 20, this Court received a letter from the office of the Travis County District Clerk notifying us that appellants had not made payment for the clerk's record. On April 9, this Court sent appellants a letter requesting a status report regarding the appeal by April 19 and warning that failure to comply with the request would result in dismissal for want of prosecution. Appellants have made no response to the letter. On May 21, 2007, the office of the district clerk informed this Court that appellants still have not made arrangements to pay for the clerk's record. On June 26, 2007, the office of the district clerk again informed this Court that arrangements for payment still have not been made. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).
_____________________________________
Diane Henson, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson
Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Filed: July 3, 2007
Appeal from 98th District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRHONORABLE W. JEANNE MEURER, JUDGE PRESIDING
ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN304065,
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellants filed a notice of appeal in the trial court on February 7, 2007; the notice was filed in this Court on February 9. On March 20, this Court received a letter from the office of the Travis County District Clerk notifying us that appellants had not made payment for the clerk's record. On April 9, this Court sent appellants a letter requesting a status report regarding the appeal by April 19 and warning that failure to comply with the request would result in dismissal for want of prosecution. Appellants have made no response to the letter. On May 21, 2007, the office of the district clerk informed this Court that appellants still have not made arrangements to pay for the clerk's record. On June 26, 2007, the office of the district clerk again informed this Court that arrangements for payment still have not been made. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).
_____________________________________
Diane Henson, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson
Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Filed: July 3, 2007
Friday, August 3, 2007
In the Best Interest of R.R. - Appeal Dismissed
In the Best Interest of R.R, No. 03-07-00185-CV (Tex.App.- Austin, Aug. 3, 2007)(Opinion by Justice Waldrop)(Dismissal)(Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson)
In the Best Interest of R.R.
Appeal from Probate Court No. 1 of Travis County
FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. 44,932, HONORABLE GUY S. HERMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant, R.R., moves to dismiss this appeal, asserting that the order from which he appealed has been dismissed in the trial court. We grant his motion and dismiss this appeal.
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: August 3, 2007
In the Best Interest of R.R.
Appeal from Probate Court No. 1 of Travis County
FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. 44,932, HONORABLE GUY S. HERMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant, R.R., moves to dismiss this appeal, asserting that the order from which he appealed has been dismissed in the trial court. We grant his motion and dismiss this appeal.
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: August 3, 2007
In re Billy Dale Carter
In re Billy Dale Carter, No. 03-07-00332-CV (Tex.App.- Austin, Aug. 3, 2007) Opinion by Justice Waldrop)(dismissal)(Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop)
Appeal from 345th District Court of Travis County
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed on the relator's motion.
__________________________________________
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop
Filed: August 3, 2007
Appeal from 345th District Court of Travis County
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed on the relator's motion.
__________________________________________
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop
Filed: August 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)