From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brotemarkle v. Brotemarkle

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont
Aug 25, 2005
No. 09-04-425 CV (Tex. App. Aug. 25, 2005)

Opinion

No. 09-04-425 CV

Opinion Delivered August 25, 2005.

On Appeal from the 410th District Court, Montgomery County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 03-02-01211-CV.

Appeal Dismissed.

Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and KREGER, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


On May 19, 2005, the appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 38.8 and 42.3. The appellant did not respond to the motion. The appellant failed to file a brief or a motion for extension of time. There being no satisfactory explanation for the failure to timely file the brief, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Tex.R.App.P. 38.8 and 42.3. Costs are assessed against appellant.


Summaries of

Brotemarkle v. Brotemarkle

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont
Aug 25, 2005
No. 09-04-425 CV (Tex. App. Aug. 25, 2005)
Case details for

Brotemarkle v. Brotemarkle

Case Details

Full title:LAMBERT WOODROW BROTEMARKLE, JR., Appellant v. DOLORESE CHARLYNE…

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont

Date published: Aug 25, 2005

Citations

No. 09-04-425 CV (Tex. App. Aug. 25, 2005)