# Stevenson Mancillas v. Shelly Marie Mancillas

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · February 23, 2012

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3124968

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** February 23, 2012
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3124968

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that failure to show proof of service of notice of appeal on all parties is proper grounds for dismissal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(d)

## Opinion text

Opinion issued February
23, 2012.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of
Texas
NO. 01-10-00674-CV
____________
STEVENSON MANCILLAS, Appellant
V.
SHELLY MARIE MANCILLAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 247th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2009-68370
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant
filed a notice of appeal from an order of dismissal in a divorce case. His notice did not contain a certificate of
service, an acknowledgment of service by the party served, or other proof that
a copy of the notice of appeal was served on the other party to the
judgment. See Tex. R. App. P .
9.5(d), 25.1(e).
On October
19, 2011, we notified appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal
unless, by October 27, 2011, he provided proof of service on all parties. See id. 9.5(d), 42.3(c); Pena v. McDowell , 201 S.W.3d 665, 667
(Tex. 2006) (stating that failure to show proof of service of notice of appeal
on all parties is proper grounds for dismissal under Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.5(d)). Appellant failed to
respond.
Accordingly,
we dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with a requirement of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5( d ), 42.3(c), 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices
Higley and Brown.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3124968. Public record. Not legal advice.