JOYCE SHAW v. BILL DUNN--Appeal from County Court at Law No 3 of Nueces County
Annotate this Case
NUMBER 13-02-580-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
________________________________________________________________
JOYCE SHAW, Appellant,
v.
BILL DUNN, Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
of Nueces County, Texas
________________________________________________________________
O P I N I O N
Before Justices Dorsey, Rodriguez, and Castillo
Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, JOYCE SHAW, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 3 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 97-60337-3. Judgment in this cause was signed on June 26, 2002. A timely motion for new trial was filed on July 9, 2002. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on September 24, 2002, but was not filed until October 16, 2002.
Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court=s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant=s untimely motion for leave to file notice of appeal was received on October 22, 2002. Appellee=s response was received and filed on October 25, 2002.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to timely perfect her appeal, appellant=s untimely motion for leave to file notice of appeal, and appellee=s response, is of the opinion that appellant=s motion should be denied and the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant=s motion for leave to file notice of appeal is DENIED. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
Tex. R. App. P.47.3.
Opinion delivered and filed this
the 27th day of November, 2002.
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.