Greenstreet v. Heiskell
| Decision Date | 01 May 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-97-0024-CV,07-97-0024-CV |
| Citation | 960 S.W.2d 713 |
| Parties | Gale GREENSTREET, Appellant, v. Merle HEISKELL and Jan Heiskell, Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appellant has filed his second motion for rehearing and his second motion for disqualification and recusal of per curiam judges.
Appellant filed the transcript herein on January 14, 1997. On March 7, 1997, we issued our opinion and dismissed the proceeding. Thereafter, on March 24, 1997, appellant filed a motion for rehearing and his first motion for disqualification and recusal of the per curiam judges, which was overruled by letter of March 25, 1997. On April 16, 1997, appellant also filed his second motion for rehearing and his second motion for disqualification and recusal of the per curiam judges. Because appellant's two motions for disqualification and recusal of per curiam judges were not timely filed in accordance with Rule 15, Tex.R.App. P., the motions for disqualification and recusal are moot and present nothing for review, and they are accordingly dismissed.
Appellant's motion for rehearing is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ho v. University of Texas at Arlington
...laws and rules of procedure. Greenstreet v. Heiskell, 940 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1997, no writ), reh'g denied, 960 S.W.2d 713 (per curiam). The rationale for the rule is that if pro se litigants were not required to comply with applicable procedural rules, they would be given a......
-
Holt v. F.F. Enterprises
...comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Greenstreet v. Heiskell, 940 S.W.2d 831 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1997), reh'g. denied, 960 S.W.2d 713 (1997). If a pro se litigant is not required to comply with the applicable rules of procedure, he would be given an unfair advantage over a li......