From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murphy v. Peterson

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, Eastland
Jun 22, 2006
No. 11-06-00136-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 22, 2006)

Opinion

No. 11-06-00136-CV

June 22, 2006.

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Midland County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. CC10516.

Panel consists of: WRIGHT, C.J., and McCALL, J., and STRANGE, J.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


On May 19, 2006, Stephen C. Murphy filed his notice of appeal challenging the trial court's summary judgment signed on March 22, 2006. On May 25, 2006, the clerk of this court wrote Murphy stating that it appeared that neither of his post judgment documents were timely filed and, therefore, that his notice of appeal was not timely filed. The clerk further pointed out that the required filing fee had not been paid. Murphy was directed to respond in writing within fifteen days showing grounds for continuing the appeal. As of this date, there has been no response.

The notice of appeal was filed fifty-eight days after the judgment was signed. Because a proper post judgment document was not timely filed, the notice of appeal was due to be filed within thirty days of the signing of the judgment. Tex.R.App.P. 26.1. There has been no request to extend the time for perfecting an appeal. Tex.R.App.P. 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997). Murphy has failed to timely perfect an appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


Summaries of

Murphy v. Peterson

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, Eastland
Jun 22, 2006
No. 11-06-00136-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 22, 2006)
Case details for

Murphy v. Peterson

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN C. MURPHY, Appellant, v. KENNETH D. PETERSON, JR. D/B/A WALL…

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, Eastland

Date published: Jun 22, 2006

Citations

No. 11-06-00136-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 22, 2006)