Marilynn Payne v. The Chancellor--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Dallas County

Annotate this Case
Marilynn Payne v. The Chancellor /**/

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-00-132-CV

 

MARILYNN PAYNE,

Appellant

v.

 

THE CHANCELLOR,

Appellee

 

From the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court # CC-00-00261-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Marilynn Payne filed a notice of appeal on February 7, 2000, seeking to appeal a final judgment rendered against her on February 3 in the County Court at Law No. 1 in Dallas County. That cause was transferred to us from the Fifth Court of Appeals pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court. On May 25, we advised Payne that the reporter s record had not been filed because she failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter s fee for preparation of the record. We then directed Payne to make the appropriate arrangements within ten days. She did not do so.

On June 14, we informed Payne that this cause would be submitted on the clerk s record alone and directed that she file a brief, limited to issues not requiring a reporter s record for consideration, within 30 days. Payne did not respond to that letter. On August 10, we notified Payne that this cause would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless she or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). We have not received a response.

Appellate Rule 38.8(a)(1) provides that if an appellant fails to timely file a brief, the Court may:

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant s failure to timely file a brief.

 

Id. 38.8(a)(1).

More than three months have passed since Payne s brief was due. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Id. 38.8(a)(1). Costs are taxed against Payne.

PER CURIAM

 

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Gray

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed November 15, 2000

Do not publish

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.