IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
NO. 10-92-073-CV
CESAR PENA, ET AL.,
Appellants
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 337th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court # 498792-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal was perfected from a judgment signed on November 27, 1991. The transcript was filed on March 25, 1992, making the Appellants' brief due to be filed no later than April 24, 1992.
To date, neither a brief in Appellants' behalf nor a motion for extension of time to file a brief has been received.
The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 74(l)(1).
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Thomas,
Justice Cummings, and
Justice Vance
Dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed August 26, 1992
Do not publish
as the majority holds.
Ackerman told the reader of his motion for summary judgment exactly the ground under which he was seeking summary judgment for fees, expenses and attorney’s fees; Section 411.180(d) of the Government Code. The reader may have to go read the statute, but this is no different than the movant stating that the ground upon which they rely as “Chapter 101 of the Texas Tort Claims Act,” or a reference to any one of the myriad of statutes that provide for some specific relief or defense.
We should avoid imposing any magic language requirement to state a ground of recovery in a summary judgment motion. If the motion provides a reader reasonable notice of the ground upon which summary judgment is sought, that should be adequate. The ground of recovery is sufficiently stated in Ackerman’s summary judgment motion.
For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s remand of this cause on the basis indicated. I concur in the remainder of the opinion.
TOM GRAY
Justice
Dissenting opinion delivered and filed October 4, 2000
Publish