From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Greenstreet v. Heiskell

Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo
May 1, 1997
960 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. App. 1997)

Opinion

No. 07-97-0024-CV.

May 1, 1997.

Appeal from the 69th Judicial District Court, Dallam County, Ron Enns, J.

E. Gale Greenstreet, Dalhart, pro se.

Robert L. Elliott, Dalhart, for appellees.


ON MOTION FOR REHEARING


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.


Summaries of

Greenstreet v. Heiskell

Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo
May 1, 1997
960 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. App. 1997)
Case details for

Greenstreet v. Heiskell

Case Details

Full title:Gale GREENSTREET, Appellant, v. Merle HEISKELL and Jan Heiskell, Appellees

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo

Date published: May 1, 1997

Citations

960 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. App. 1997)

Citing Cases

Holt v. F.F. Enterprises

A pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws…

Su Inn Ho v. University of Texas at Arlington

Initially, it is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and…