You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Jackie D. Dill and Vergie Erlene Dill v. T.C. Investments, II, LLC, Successor to the Small Business Administration

Citation: Not availableDocket: 07-03-00283-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 6, 2003; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Jackie D. Dill and Vergie Erlene Dill filed an appeal against T.C. Investments, II, L.L.C., which is the successor to the Small Business Administration, challenging a summary judgment from the 237th District Court of Lubbock County. The appellants were required to file their brief by August 11, 2003, but failed to do so without requesting an extension. On September 9, 2003, the Court notified the appellants’ counsel, J.A. Trey Didway, about the missing brief and requested an explanation for the delay, along with proof that the appellee had not been significantly harmed by it. No response was received from the counsel, and the brief remained unfiled. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal due to lack of prosecution and non-compliance with its order, citing Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b) and (c).

Legal Issues Addressed

Compliance with Filing Deadlines

Application: The appellants were required to file their brief by a specific deadline, which they failed to meet without seeking an extension, leading to court intervention.

Reasoning: The appellants were required to file their brief by August 11, 2003, but failed to do so without requesting an extension.

Court's Authority to Enforce Procedural Rules

Application: The court exercised its authority to enforce procedural rules by notifying the appellants' counsel of the missing brief and requesting an explanation for the delay.

Reasoning: On September 9, 2003, the Court notified the appellants’ counsel, J.A. Trey Didway, about the missing brief and requested an explanation for the delay, along with proof that the appellee had not been significantly harmed by it.

Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution

Application: The appeals court dismissed the appeal due to appellants' failure to file the required brief within the stipulated time and their non-compliance with the court's order to explain the delay.

Reasoning: Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal due to lack of prosecution and non-compliance with its order, citing Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b) and (c).