GREENSTREET v. HEISKELL (1997)

Court of Appeals of Texas,Amarillo.

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

No. 07-97-0024-CV.

Decided: May 01, 1997

E. Gale Greenstreet, Dalhart, pro se. Robert L. Elliott, Dalhart, for appellees.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

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.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network