Legal Opinion
Spellman v. Hung Duy Hoang
Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
Decided October 12, 1994No. 04-94-00029-CVPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON APPELLEES’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
2Per curiam
The preliminary issue in this case is whether a motion for new trial, which is timely tendered and file-stamped by the district clerk, acts to extend the appellate timetable when the statutory filing fee is not timely paid. We hold that it does.
Judgment in the present case was signed on September 15, 1993. A motion for new trial was due to be filed no later than October 15,1993. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 329b(a). Appellants’ motion for new trial was tendered and file-stamped on October 7, 1993. The motion was heard and denied on October 21, 1993.
Appellants…
3Cases cited4 opinions
- Jamar v. PattersonTexas Supreme Court · 1994
- Davies v. MasseyTexas Supreme Court · 1978
- Arndt v. ArndtCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1986
- Wadkins v. Diversified Contractors, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1986
4Cited by10 opinions
- Finley v. J.C. Pace Ltd., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1999
- Tate v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1996
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Salinas, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2007
- Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner Ex Rel. Pitzner, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2001
- Kvanvig v. Garcia, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1996
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.