Thomas G. Alviar, et al. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, et al.--Appeal from 117th District Court of Nueces County

Annotate this Case
NUMBER 13-04-233-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________ _

 

THOMAS G. ALVIAR, ET AL., Appellants,

 
v.

HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY

COMPANY, ET AL., Appellees.

_______________________________________________________

 
On appeal from the 117th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.

______________________________________________________ _

 
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Ya ez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, THOMAS G. ALVIAR, ET AL., attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered by the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause no. 00-02206-B.

The documents on file in this cause fail to affirmatively reflect that this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. First, it appears that the order from which this appeal is taken is not a final, appealable judgment. Second, it appears that parties have filed suggestions of bankruptcy; however, the record fails to reflect that any bankruptcy stay has been lifted or the case otherwise remanded to the trial court. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, notice of these defects was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defects, if it could be done. Appellants were advised that, if the defects were not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellants failed to file a response as requested by this Court's notice.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants' failure to respond to this Court's notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 12th day of October, 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.