Guadalupe Gonzalez, Maria Belen Gonzalez and Hilda Segura v. David Wayne Spence--Appeal from 11th District Court of Harris County

Annotate this Case
Guadalupe Gonzalez, Maria Belen Gonzalez and Hilda Segura v. David Wayne Spence /**/

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-01-262-CV

 

GUADALUPE GONZALEZ,

MARIA BELEN GONZALEZ

AND HILDA SEGURA,

Appellants

v.

 

DAVID WAYNE SPENCE,

Appellee

 

From the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court # 00-08370

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants filed suit against Appellee seeking damages for injuries they allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. A jury refused to find that Appellee s negligence, if any, was a proximate cause of Appellants injuries. The court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict.

Appellants timely filed a notice of appeal. The clerk s record was filed in this Court on September 6, 2001. Because Appellants failed to pay for the reporter s record or make arrangements for such payment, we notified them by letter dated November 26, 2001 that this appeal would be submitted on the clerk s record alone and that their brief was due in thirty days. To date, Appellants have not filed a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a).

Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1) provides that if an appellant fails to timely file his brief, 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.

 

Id. 38.8(a)(1).

More than thirty days have passed since Appellants brief was due. We notified them of this defect by letter dated January 10, 2002. Id. 42.3, 44.3. They have not responded to our letter. Id. 42.3, 38.8(a)(1). Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Id. 38.8(a)(1).

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Gray

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed February 6, 2002

Do not publish

[CV06]

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.