Narrative Opinion Summary
Dennis Kyle Thurmon's appeal against multiple appellees, including Skyline Mobile Home Estates and various governmental entities, was dismissed for want of prosecution due to his failure to file a required brief as mandated by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). The court notified Thurmon on February 17, 2009, providing him ten days to file a motion explaining the delay and requesting an extension. No response was received within the stipulated time frame. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and mandated that Thurmon bear the costs of the appeal process. The motion to dismiss filed by appellee Skyline Mobile Home Estates on March 11, 2009, was rendered moot by this decision. The judgment was delivered by a panel including Meier, Cayce, and Livingston on March 19, 2009.
Legal Issues Addressed
Costs of Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal process following the dismissal of his appeal for non-compliance.
Reasoning: Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and mandated that Thurmon bear the costs of the appeal process.
Dismissal for Want of Prosecutionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to file a required brief within the timeframe set by the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a).
Reasoning: Dennis Kyle Thurmon's appeal against multiple appellees, including Skyline Mobile Home Estates and various governmental entities, was dismissed for want of prosecution due to his failure to file a required brief as mandated by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a).
Mootness of Subsequent Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The motion to dismiss filed by an appellee was rendered moot by the court's decision to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
Reasoning: The motion to dismiss filed by appellee Skyline Mobile Home Estates on March 11, 2009, was rendered moot by this decision.
Notification and Opportunity to Explain Delaysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant was notified of the requirement to file a brief and given an opportunity to explain the delay and request an extension, which he failed to do.
Reasoning: The court notified Thurmon on February 17, 2009, providing him ten days to file a motion explaining the delay and requesting an extension. No response was received within the stipulated time frame.