From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cain v. Wilson

Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo
Aug 12, 2003
No. 07-03-0223-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 12, 2003)

Opinion

No. 07-03-0223-CV.

August 12, 2003.

Appeal From The 356th District Court Of Hardin County; No. 42,906; Honorable Britt Plunk, Judge

PANEL D: QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Ed Cain and David Sheffield, appellants, appeal the trial court's order denying their plea to its jurisdiction. We must dismiss the appeal.

Appellants' brief was due June 30, 2003. By letter dated July 9, 2003, we notified appellants that the due date for the brief had passed, and that we had received neither their brief nor a motion for extension of time to file it. Citing Tex.R.App. Proc. 38.8, the letter also notified appellants that the appeal would be subject to dismissal unless a response reasonably explaining their failure to file a brief, together with a showing that the appellee has not been significantly injured by the failure, was submitted by July 22, 2003. Appellants have not filed such a response, nor have they since submitted a brief or a motion for extension of time.

Accordingly, having given all parties more than the required ten days' notice, we dismiss the appeal. Tex.R.App. Proc. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b).


Summaries of

Cain v. Wilson

Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo
Aug 12, 2003
No. 07-03-0223-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 12, 2003)
Case details for

Cain v. Wilson

Case Details

Full title:E.D. CAIN, HARDIN COUNTY SHERIFF AND DAVID A. SHEFFIELD, COUNTY ATTORNEY…

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo

Date published: Aug 12, 2003

Citations

No. 07-03-0223-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 12, 2003)