Court Opinion

ID: 2920088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 01:17:44.442799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:09:15.853680
License: Public Domain

NUMBER
13-02-584-CV
 
                             COURT
OF APPEALS
 
                   THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                                CORPUS
CHRISTI
___________________________________________________________________
 
DAVID NEUBAUER,                                                               Appellant,
 
                                                   v.
 
THE CITY OF ALAMO,                                                            Appellee.
___________________________________________________________________
 
                        On
appeal from the 275th District Court 
                                  of Hidalgo County, Texas
___________________________________________________________________
 
                                   O
P I N I O N
 
                   Before
Justices Dorsey, Rodriguez, and Castillo
                                       Opinion
Per Curiam
 

Appellant, DAVID NEUBAUER, attempted to perfect an
appeal from a judgment entered by the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-061-99-E.  Judgment in this cause was signed on April 29, 2002; however, upon motion filed by appellant in accordance
with Rule 306a(5) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule
4.2(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the trial court found June
11, 2002 to be the date appellant first either received notice or acquired
actual knowledge that the judgment was signed.  No timely motion for new trial was
filed.  Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on July
11, 2002, but was not filed until October 16, 2002.  
Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to
correct the defect, if it could be done. 
Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten
days from the date of receipt of this Court=s letter, the appeal would be dismissed.  Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction, appellant has filed a response to appellee=s motion, and appellee
has filed a reply to appellant=s response.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,
appellant=s failure to timely
perfect his appeal, and the motion and responses,  is of the opinion that the appeal
should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 
Appellee=s motion to dismiss is
GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.
PER CURIAM
 
Do not publish.
Tex.
R. App. P.
47.3.
Opinion delivered and
filed this
the 27th
day of November, 2002.