Primestar Construction, Inc. v. City of Dallas, Texas Appeal from 192nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismissed and Opinion Filed January 30, 2018 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01447-CV PRIMESTAR CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellant V. CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-05460 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Evans, and Justice Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright The filing fee and docketing statement in this case are past due. By postcard dated December 18, 2017, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated December 18, 2017, we notified appellant the docketing statement had not been filed in this case. We directed appellant to file the docketing statement within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so might result in dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, filed a docketing statement, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE 171447F.P05 –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT PRIMESTAR CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellant No. 05-17-01447-CV On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-05460. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Evans and Brown participating. V. CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Appellee In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that appellee CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS recover its costs of this appeal from appellant PRIMESTAR CONSTRUCTION, INC.. Judgment entered January 30, 2018. –3–

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.