Wallis Energy, Inc. v. Hamm & Phillips Service Co.--Appeal from County Court at Law No 3 of Nueces County

Annotate this Case
/**/

NUMBER 13-04-517-CV

 

COURT OF APPEALS

 

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

 

WALLIS ENERGY, INC., Appellant,

 

v.

 

HAMM & PHILLIPS SERVICE CO., Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

 

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

Before Justices Hinojosa, Ya ez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

 

Appellant, WALLIS ENERGY, INC., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 3 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 02-61910-3. The clerk s record was filed on October 18, 2004. No reporter s record was filed. Appellant s brief was due on November 17, 2004. To date, no appellate brief has been received.

When the appellant has failed to file a brief in the time prescribed, 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. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On February 18, 2005, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant was given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. To date, no response has been received.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant s failure to file a proper appellate brief, this Court s notice, and appellant s failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 7th day of April, 2005.

 

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.