Narrative Opinion Summary
Appellant Gilbert Rodriguez failed to file a brief or request an extension for filing the brief in his appeal against the University of Texas System. On May 26, 2004, the Court of Appeals notified the parties of its intention to dismiss the appeal due to lack of prosecution, allowing ten days for any party to present valid grounds to continue the appeal. No responses were received from the parties. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal based on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b). The decision was rendered by Justice Susan Larsen on June 24, 2004, with the panel consisting of Justices Larsen, McClure, and Chew.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied this rule to dismiss the appeal because the appellant did not comply with the requirement to file a brief or request an extension.
Reasoning: Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal based on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b).
Dismissal of Appeal for Lack of Prosecutionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to file a brief or request an extension, and no response was received to continue the appeal.
Reasoning: Appellant Gilbert Rodriguez failed to file a brief or request an extension for filing the brief in his appeal against the University of Texas System. On May 26, 2004, the Court of Appeals notified the parties of its intention to dismiss the appeal due to lack of prosecution, allowing ten days for any party to present valid grounds to continue the appeal.
Notification and Opportunity to Prevent Dismissalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court provided notice to the parties and an opportunity to show valid grounds to continue the appeal, but no party responded.
Reasoning: On May 26, 2004, the Court of Appeals notified the parties of its intention to dismiss the appeal due to lack of prosecution, allowing ten days for any party to present valid grounds to continue the appeal. No responses were received from the parties.