Marta Martinez v. County of El Paso--Appeal from County Court at Law No 7 of El Paso County

Annotate this Case

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARTA MARTINEZ, )

) No. 08-02-00477-CV

Appellant, )

) Appeal from the

v. )

) County Court at Law #7

COUNTY OF EL PASO, )

) of El Paso County, Texas

Appellee. )

) (TC# 2002-2729)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This attempted appeal is before the Court on its own motion, for determination of whether it should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Finding that the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss the attempted appeal.

Tex.R.App.P. 42.3 states:

Under the following circumstances, on any party=s motion--or on its own initiative after giving ten days= notice to all parties--the appellate court may dismiss the appeal or affirm the appealed judgment or order. Dismissal or affirmance may occur if the appeal is subject to dismissal:

(a) for want of jurisdiction;

(b) for want of prosecution; or

(c) because the appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time.

 

This appeal is from a judgment entered on September 11, 2002. Per Tex.R.App.P. 26.1, notice of appeal was due on October 11, 2002. Our records indicate that Appellant filed notice of appeal in this cause on November 7, 2002. On November 12, 2002, this Court=s clerk sent the parties a notice of the Court=s intent to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, unless any party, within ten (10) days from the date of notice, could show grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant failed to respond within the proscribed deadline and to date we have received no response from Appellee. Accordingly, pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 42.3(a) and (c), we dismiss the attempted appeal for want of jurisdiction.

January 23, 2003

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice

Before Panel No. 3

Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and Chew, JJ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.