Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roger Earl Ebarb v. Nancy Ebarb Hopson As

April 25, 2013

ROGER EARL EBARB,
APPELLANT,
v.
NANCY EBARB HOPSON AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LUCILLE LEONE EBARB,
APPELLEE.



On appeal from the County Court of Newton County, Texas.

Per curiam.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on February 13, 2013. On March 12, 2013, appellant filed a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief failed generally to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4., 9.5(e), 38.1.

On March 15, 2013, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief failed to comply with Rule 9.4, 9.5 (e) and 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief does not contain the following: the identity of parties and counsel as required by rule 38.1(a); a table of contents as required by rule 38.1(b); an index of authorities as required by rule 38.1(c); a statement of the case supported by record references as required by rule 38.1(d); the issues presented for review as required by rule 38.1(f); a statement of facts pertinent to the issues or points presented as required by rule 38.1(g); a summary of the argument as required by rule 38.1(h); a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to the authorities and to the record as required by rule 38.1(i); a prayer stating the nature of the relief sought as required by rule 38.1(j); and does not contain an appendix as required by rule 38.1(k). See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Additionally, the brief's margins, spacing and typeface are not in compliance and the brief does not contain a certificate of compliance or a certificate of service. See id. 9.4, 9.5(e).

Appellant was directed to file an amended brief in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the date of the letter, and notified that if the Court received another brief that did not comply, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief, under which circumstances the Court may affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. See id. 38.9(a), 42.3(b),(c). Appellant failed to respond to the Court's notice.

Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). If the appellate court determines that the briefing rules have been flagrantly violated, it may require a brief to be amended, supplemented, or redrawn. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). If the appellant does not file another brief that complies with the rules of appellate procedure, the appellate court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. Id. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has failed to file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Accordingly, we strike appellant's non-conforming brief and order the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

20130425

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.