Legal Opinion

Whitt v. Hartgraves

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided January 25, 1967No. Mo. A 1479PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant, Paul N. Whitt, filed his motion for an extension of thirty days within which to file his transcript and statement of facts because of press of business of the court reporter. This motion has been contested by appellees, Harry Hartgraves et al., on the ground that good cause has not been shown. Final judgment was entered in this cause on November 9, 1966, and this motion was filed on January 16, 1967, same being the sixty-eighth day after entry of judgment.

Rule 386, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, requires the appellant to “file the transcript and statement of facts with the clerk…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Matlock v. MatlockTexas Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Consolidated Casualty Insurance Company v. WadeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1963
  3. Wigley v. TaylorTexas Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Dellerman v. TragerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1959
  5. Williams v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1965

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. City of San Antonio v. TerrillCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1973
  2. Jahant v. OgdenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1968
  3. Gutierrez v. CasanovaCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1970
  4. Home Fund, Inc. v. Denton Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1972
  5. Hill Chemicals Co. v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1970

13 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