Duncan v. Tweedy
Court of Appeals of Texas
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
- TEXAS EMPLOYERS'INS. ASS'N v. MartinTexas Supreme Court · 1961
- Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co. v. ArnoldTexas Supreme Court · 1965
- Moore v. DeCuirCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1956
- Holland v. Foley Brothers Dry Goods CompanyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1959
- 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
- Wood v. Griffin & Brand of McAllen, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1984
- Gaynier v. Ginsberg, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1988
- Amwest Surety Insurance v. Graham, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1997
- Amwest Surety Insurance v. Graham, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1997
- Carroll v. CouchCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1981
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.