McClairy Jackson v. Frank Hoke, R. Wathen, Grievance Investigator 212, D. Ford, and v. Barrow
Tex. App.—2nd Dist.June 2, 2005No. 02-05-00099-CV
DismissedBarrow
Case Details
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for failure to pay the required $125 filing fee within the time specified by the appellate court.
What This Ruling Means
**Court Dismisses Worker's Appeal Over Unpaid Filing Fee**
McClairy Jackson, a worker, had a dispute with several individuals including Frank Hoke, R. Wathen (a grievance investigator), D. Ford, and someone associated with Barrow (likely the employer). Jackson apparently lost an earlier employment-related case and decided to appeal the decision to a higher court.
**What the Court Decided:**
The appeals court dismissed Jackson's case entirely. However, this dismissal had nothing to do with whether Jackson's workplace complaint had merit. Instead, the court threw out the appeal because Jackson failed to pay the required $125 filing fee within the deadline set by the court.
**What This Means for Workers:**
This case serves as an important reminder that court procedures and deadlines are strictly enforced, regardless of how valid your workplace complaint might be. Even if you have a strong case about workplace violations, missing administrative requirements like filing fees or deadlines can end your case before a judge ever reviews the actual facts. Workers pursuing legal action should carefully track all court requirements and deadlines, or consider working with an attorney who can ensure proper procedures are followed. A good case can be lost simply due to paperwork issues.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
The University of Texas at Arlington v. Julie Shaw
Tex. App.—2nd Dist.May 2026
The Bridge Strategy & Technology Consulting, LLC v. Josh Adams
Tex. App.—2nd Dist.Apr 2026
In Re American Federation of Government Employees and AFGE Local 1006 v. the State of Texas
Tex. App.—2nd Dist.Dec 2024
Maria Socorro Estrada, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Cesar Estrada Rangel, and as Next of Friend to C.E., Jr., Y.E. and N.E., Minors Juliana Meza on Behalf of the Estate of Leo Marin and as Next Friend to E.I.M., a Minor Amanda M. Estrada as Next Friend to J.O.H.P., a Minor And Damian Michael Estrada v. 12291 CBW, LLC D/B/A Temptations Cabaret, Inc. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. And RCI Holdings, Inc.
Tex. App.—2nd Dist.Oct 2021
Maria Socorro Estrada, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Cesar Estrada Rangel, and as Next of Friend to C.E., Jr., Y.E. and N.E., Minors Juliana Meza on Behalf of the Estate of Leo Marin and as Next Friend to E.I.M., a Minor Amanda M. Estrada as Next Friend to J.O.H.P., a Minor And Damian Michael Estrada v. 12291 CBW, LLC D/B/A Temptations Cabaret, Inc. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. And RCI Holdings, Inc.
Tex. App.—2nd Dist.Sep 2021
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.