Court Opinion

ID: 2923488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 03:31:22.67114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:30.657869
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-04-509-CV
 
                         COURT OF APPEALS
 
               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
_______________________________________________________

 
JAMES
H. EDWARDS, 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, JAMES H. EDWARDS, ET AL., perfected an appeal from a judgment
entered by the   117th
District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 04-3815-H.  The clerk=s record was filed on October 27, 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
31, 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