Raulston v. Progressive Ins. Co., 05-03-01238-CV.
| Decision Date | 23 September 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-03-01238-CV.,05-03-01238-CV. |
| Parties | Bruce RAULSTON, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Progressive Northern Insurance Company, Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company, and Progressive Insurance Center, Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Joseph M. Cox, Judge.
Bruce W. Raulston, Dallas, Appellant pro se.
Rick Burn, Dallas, for Appellees.
Before Justices MOSELEY, RICHTER, and FRANCIS.
On August 19, 2003, appellant's notice of appeal was filed with this Court. Appellant's notice of appeal states, "Now Comes the plaintiff by and through counsel of record and filings with this Notice of Appeal from the judgement herein to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Dallas County, Texas." Such notice of appeal was signed by appellant, who is representing himself in this appeal. Attached to the notice of appeal is an "Order of Dismissal for Want of Prosecution" dated June 16, 2003.
In a letter dated September 2, 2003, the Court instructed appellant to amend his notice of appeal to "state the date of the judgment or order appealed from." Additionally, the Court informed appellant that the notice of appeal appears to be untimely filed 64 days after June 16, 2003, the date the order of dismissal was signed. Appellant was instructed to file a jurisdictional brief explaining the Court's "legal basis for jurisdiction over an appeal wherein the notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days after the order on appeal was signed." Additionally, appellant was instructed to file a certified copy of any motion filed that would extend the time to file notice of appeal and was directed to file a docketing statement. The Court's letter warned appellant that failure to file any of the requested items would result in the dismissal of his appeal, without further notice from the Court.
On September 5, 2003, appellant filed a jurisdictional brief. However, his brief has no discussion of the timeliness issue of appellant's notice of appeal, and no motions extending the time to file the notice of appeal were attached. Appellant did file an August 26, 2003 docketing statement, in which he stated that no motions extending the time for appeal were filed. In his docketing statement, appellant listed two orders, the dismissal for want of prosecution signed on June 16, 2003 and an order regarding lack of jurisdiction signed on August 20, 2003. Appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Am. Heritage Capital, LP v. Gonzalez
...302 S.W.3d 542, 546 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.). A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Raulston v. Progressive Ins. Co., 115 S.W.3d 803, 804 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (per curiam). Generally, the notice of appeal is due thirty days after the judgment is signe......
-
Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney
...forth deadlines for appeal in civil cases). Because a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite, Raulston v. Progressive Ins. Co., 115 S.W.3d 803, 804 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (per curiam), we questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal and solicited letter briefs fro......
-
Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., No. 05-07-01269-CV (Tex. App. 2/10/2009)
...her September 2007 notice of appeal was not timely filed, and we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Raulston v. Progressive Ins. Co., 115 S.W.3d 803, 804 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (per curiam) (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional III. Conclusion We dismiss this appeal f......
-
King v. BASF Corporation, No. 14-06-00241-CV (TX 5/11/2006)
...has jurisdiction over his appeal. A timely notice of appeal is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. See Raulston v. Progressive Ins. Co., 115 S.W.3d 803, 804 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). Because appellant's notice of appeal is untimely, we are without jurisdiction to conside......