Legal Opinion
A. Copeland Enterprises, Inc. v. Tindall
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided January 24, 1985No. 2-84-132-CVPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BURDOCK, Justice.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, appeal the trial court’s dismissal of their suit against appellees for want of prosecution.
We affirm.
Appellants, A. Copeland Enterprises, Inc. and Popeyes Famous Fried Chicken, Inc., filed suit against appellees, Charles W. Tin-dall, James E. Bradshaw, and Tri-Chick, Inc., on May 1, 1979, seeking recovery under a sworn account and damages for breach of a franchise agreement. In accordance with a long-standing local custom, the district clerk mails a court docket to all interested attorneys and law firms setting forth the cases set to be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. RotelloTexas Supreme Court · 1984
- Harris County v. MillerTexas Supreme Court · 1979
- Davis v. Laredo Diesel, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1981
- Bentley v. Rio Grande Development GroupCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1980
3Cited by9 opinions
- Anita Saint and Jonathan Saint v. Samuel B. Bledsoe and Dale Rose, Administrator of the Estate of Blake M. Bledsoe, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2013
- Lowe v. UNITEED STATES SHOE CORP.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1993
- Gutierrez v. Lone Star National Bank, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1997
- Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. City of ArlingtonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1986
- Anita Saint and Jonathan Saint v. Samuel B. Bledsoe and Dale Rose, Administrator of the Estate of Blake M. Bledsoe, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2013
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.