Norman Crittendon v. J. Doe, et al Appeal from County Court at Law of Polk County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-16-00375-CV ____________________ NORMAN CRITTENDON, Appellant V. J. DOE, ET AL, Appellees ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. CV03358 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court signed a final judgment on October 25, 2016. Norman Crittendon filed a notice of appeal but failed to file a brief. On February 13, 2017, we notified the appellant that we had granted a final extension, that his brief was due to be filed on or before April 17, 2017, and that no motions for extension of time would be entertained. On April 18, 2017, we notified the parties that the brief had not been filed and warned that the appeal would be submitted without briefs unless we received the brief and a motion for extension of time by April 28, 2017. 1 Crittendon filed a motion to abate the appeal and a motion for extension of time, but he failed to submit a brief with his motion for extension. On June 14, 2017, we denied Crittendon’s motion to abate the appeal, notified the parties that the appellant’s brief had not been filed, warned the appellant that his failure to file a brief could result in a dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution, and notified the parties that the appeal would be submitted to the Court on July 5, 2017, without briefs and without oral argument. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. In the absence of a brief assigning error for appellate review, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). APPEAL DISMISSED. ________________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on July 5, 2017 Opinion Delivered July 20, 2017 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 2
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.
