Legal Opinion

Duncan v. Tweedy

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided May 25, 1979No. 22985PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GUITTARD, Chief Justice.

The question for decision is the sufficiency of an agreement to postpone the ruling on a motion for new trial under rule 329b(3) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. We hold that a letter to the judge signed by appellant’s counsel stating that both parties had agreed to postpone the ruling to a certain date is not sufficient and that a written agreement to the same effect signed by both counsel and filed after expiration of the forty-five day period allowed by the rule is ineffective.

Our clerk has previously declined to file the transcript tendered by appellant on…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. TEXAS EMPLOYERS'INS. ASS'N v. MartinTexas Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co. v. ArnoldTexas Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Moore v. DeCuirCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1956
  4. Holland v. Foley Brothers Dry Goods CompanyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1959
  5. Texas Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Building Material Distributors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1973

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Wood v. Griffin & Brand of McAllen, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1984
  2. Gaynier v. Ginsberg, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1988
  3. Amwest Surety Insurance v. Graham, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1997
  4. Amwest Surety Insurance v. Graham, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1997
  5. Carroll v. CouchCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1981

2 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