Legal Opinion

Tate v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1996No. 96-0153PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Per curiam

We must decide whether a motion for new trial timely presented to the district clerk without the required filing fee extends the appellate timetable, where the movant pays the filing fee after the motion is overruled by operation of law but before the trial court loses plenary jurisdiction. The court of appeals, holding that the appellate timetable was not extended, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 709 S.W.2d 281. Because we hold that the appellate timetable was extended under these circumstances, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to that court…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Mafrige v. RossTexas Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Linwood v. NCNB TexasTexas Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Jamar v. PattersonTexas Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Gomez v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional DivisionTexas Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Maxfield v. TerryTexas Supreme Court · 1994

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Garza v. GarciaTexas Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Finley v. J.C. Pace Ltd., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1999
  3. In the Interest of C.A.S.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2003
  4. Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner Ex Rel. Pitzner, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2001
  5. Clark v. University of Houston, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1998

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API