From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crain v. Rogers

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Aug 2, 2006
No. 04-06-00347-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 2, 2006)

Summary

In Rogers v. Crain, 30 Tex. 284, a nonexpert witness was not permitted to state whether from all appearances a person was suffering from a disease chronic in its nature.

Summary of this case from Tyrrell-Combest Realty v. Adams

Opinion

No. 04-06-00347-CV

Delivered and Filed: August 2, 2006.

Appeal from the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2003-CI-13804, Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding.

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution.

Sitting: Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice, Phylis J. SPEEDLIN, Justice, Rebecca SIMMONS, Justice.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


The clerk's record was originally due March 10, 2006. On June 9, 2006, this court ordered appellant to provide written proof, no later than June 22, 2006, to this court that either (1) the clerk's fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk's fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk's fee. Our order stated that if appellant failed to respond within the time provided, this appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex.R.App.P. 37.3(b). Appellant has not responded to our order. Accordingly, on July 11, 2006, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex.R.App.P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b). No response has been received.

Additionally, a filing fee of $125.00 was due from appellant when this appeal was filed but was not paid. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 51.207(b)(1), 51.941(a)(1) (Vernon 2005); Texas Supreme Court Order Regarding Fees Charged In Civil Cases In the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals (July 21, 1998) § B.1.(a). The clerk of the court notified appellant of this deficiency in a letter dated May 31, 2006. The fee remains unpaid. Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay — at the time an item is presented for filing — whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order that is just.

Tex.R.App.P. 5.

Accordingly, on July 11, 2006, this court ordered appellant to either (1) pay the applicable filing fee or (2) provide written proof to this court that she is excused by statute or the Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying the fee. See Tex.R.App.P. 20.1 (providing that indigent party who complies with provisions of that rule may proceed without advance payment of costs). Our order informed appellant that if she failed to respond satisfactorily within the time ordered, this appeal would be dismissed. See Tex.R.App.P. 42.3. No response has been received.

This appeal is dismissed. Costs of appeal are taxed against appellant.


Summaries of

Crain v. Rogers

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Aug 2, 2006
No. 04-06-00347-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 2, 2006)

In Rogers v. Crain, 30 Tex. 284, a nonexpert witness was not permitted to state whether from all appearances a person was suffering from a disease chronic in its nature.

Summary of this case from Tyrrell-Combest Realty v. Adams
Case details for

Crain v. Rogers

Case Details

Full title:SUSAN CRAIN, Appellant v. DORA ROGERS, M.D., Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

Date published: Aug 2, 2006

Citations

No. 04-06-00347-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 2, 2006)

Citing Cases

Texas Trunk Ry. Co. v. Ayres

2. Dr. Thurston's opinion as to the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, formed without an…

Pecos N. T. Ry. Co. v. Coffman

— In order to render declarations of one suffering with pain admissible in evidence, it must appear that the…