[centex]

Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

Not real sure what the background of the case was or how Bookert prevailed at trial, but Palisades gave notice of appeal. They apparently were too slow in their filing of a brief on appeal despite the overdue notice from the First Court of Appeals.

A brief review of the docketing history at the CoA level also is suggestive of them having been remiss in paying for the Reporter's Record.

Allow this to serve as yet another reminder to pay attention when a Court sends you a notice saying something is due by a particular date...this sort of dismissal tends to happen more frequently with pro se litigant/appellants than with parties represented by counsel but...in this case the tables were turned and Bookert derived the benefit.

[jlynn]

Could it be that Defendant just decided after the fact not to appeal?

[centex]

Originally Posted by jlynn

Could it be that Defendant just decided after the fact not to appeal?

Given that appellant was Palisades, I don't see them taking one on the chin and just going away. The fact that this was in State District suggests that Bookert may have been the plaintiff, but still, I just don't see Palisades just walking away given the way they fought in the RealtorKen case discussed at length on a couple of boards...

Further, even if they did decide to abandon the appeal, I cannot imagine their counsel tarnishing their reputation in the Court by not giving the Court the courtesy of a notice of the withdrawal.