Gery Lee Scott v. Dorsey and Keatts Funeral Home--Appeal from 74th District Court of McLennan County

Annotate this Case
Gery Lee Scott v. Dorsey and Keatts Funeral Home /**/

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-00-177-CV

 

GERY LEE SCOTT,

Appellant

v.

 

DORSEY-KEATTS FUNERAL HOME, INC.,

Appellee

 

From the 74th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # 99-1-3

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Gery Lee Scott filed suit against Dorsey-Keatts Funeral Home, Inc. alleging that the funeral home had wrongfully accepted a $10,000 life insurance check payable to Scott without his consent to pay the costs associated with the funeral of Scott s mother. According to Scott, his sister endorsed his name on the check and gave it to the funeral home. The funeral home denies these allegations. Scott has been incarcerated in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice at all times pertinent to this appeal. The trial court dismissed Scott s suit as frivolous under sections 14.003(a)(2), 14.004, and section 14.010 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 14.003(a)(2), 14.004, 14.010 (Vernon Supp. 2000).

After the record was filed, Scott tendered to this Court a three-page document which purported to be his brief. We declined to file this document, however, because it failed to substantially comply with the requirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. Specifically, we notified Scott that his brief must: contain appropriate references to the appellate record to support his factual assertions; identify specific issues on the basis of which he believes reversal is required; and cite legal authorities to support such issues. Id. 38.1(d), (e), (f), (h). We advised Scott that his appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution within twenty-one days if he failed to file a brief which substantially complies with these requirements. Id. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a).

Scott has tendered a second brief which does not substantially comply with the requirements identified. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution. Id. Costs of court are taxed against Scott.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis

Justice Vance and

Justice Gray

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed July 12, 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Do not publish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.