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.

Swan Roofing, LLC v. Sharon Shalene Portman

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-10-00122-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 23, 2010; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Appellant Swan Roofing, LLC failed to file the required brief in a timely manner as per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). On August 25, 2010, the court notified the appellant of this deficiency and warned that the appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution unless a response was filed within ten days. No response was submitted. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), 42.3(b), and 43.2(f), ordering the appellant to pay all costs associated with the appeal. The judgment was delivered by the panel consisting of Justices Dauphinot, Gardner, and Walker on September 23, 2010.

Legal Issues Addressed

Costs Associated with Dismissed Appeals

Application: The court ordered the appellant to bear all costs associated with the dismissed appeal, reflecting the consequence of failing to comply with procedural obligations.

Reasoning: Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), 42.3(b), and 43.2(f), ordering the appellant to pay all costs associated with the appeal.

Dismissal for Want of Prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)

Application: The court applied this rule by dismissing the appeal due to the appellant's failure to respond after being notified of a deficiency in filing the required brief.

Reasoning: Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), 42.3(b), and 43.2(f).

Notice Requirement for Dismissal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b)

Application: The appellant was notified of the deficiency and warned of potential dismissal, satisfying the notice requirement before the court proceeded with dismissal.

Reasoning: On August 25, 2010, the court notified the appellant of this deficiency and warned that the appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution unless a response was filed within ten days.