Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

GREENSTREET v. HEISKELL
(May 1, 1997)