Rainey v. Isenberg
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
MURRAY, Chief Justice.
It appears from the transcript herein that summary judgment for the defendant was rendered on April 7, 1961. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was filed prior to April 7, 1961, which was premature, but will be considered under the Provisions of Rule 306c, as having been filed on the same day, but after the judgment was rendered.
Under the provisions of Rule 329b, appellant had twenty days after the filing of the motion for a new trial within which to file an amended motion for a new trial. This he did not do, but on May 19, 1961, filed an amended motion for a new trial…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Matlock v. MatlockTexas Supreme Court · 1952
3Cited by5 opinions
- Alamo Federal Credit Union v. CeledonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1967
- Nickel v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1966
- Wilkinson v. WilkinsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1967
- Lucas v. WindhamCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1969
- Winetroub v. StantonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1970