JAMES H. EDWARDS, ET AL. v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL.--Appeal from 117th District Court of Nueces County
Annotate this Case
NUMBER 13-04-509-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
_______________________________________________________
JAMES H. EDWARDS, ET AL., Appellants,
v.
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL., Appellees.
_______________________________________________________
On appeal from the 117th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
______________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Ya ez, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellants, JAMES H. EDWARDS, ET AL., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 04-3815-H. The clerk=s record was filed on October 27, 2005. No reporter=s record was filed. Appellants= brief was due on November 28, 2005. To date, no appellate brief has been received.
When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, 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. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).
On January 31, 2006, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellants were given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. To date, no response has been received.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants= failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court=s notice, and appellants= failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.
PER CURIAM
Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this the 2nd day of March, 2006
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.