Legal Opinion

Verburgt v. Dorner

Texas Supreme Court

Decided February 13, 1998No. 96-1026PublishedCited by 2,471 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSpector, Justice

in which PHILLIPS, Chief Justice, GONZALEZ, HECHT and OWEN, Justices, join.

In this ease, we decide whether the court of appeals erred in dismissing an appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellant, John Verburgt, filed a cost bond on the thirty-fourth day after the trial court rendered judgment against him. Verburgt mistakenly believed that he had timely complied with Rule 41(a)(1) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure in filing the bond and did not concurrently move to extend the time to file under Rule 41(a)(2).1 We hold that a motion for extension of time is implied when a party, acting…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Olivo v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1996
  2. Linwood v. NCNB TexasTexas Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Grand Prairie Independent School District v. Southern Parts Imports, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Jamar v. PattersonTexas Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Glidden Company v. Aetna Casualty & Surety CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1956

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

3Cited by2,471 opinions

  1. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 2001
  2. CMH HOMES v. PerezTexas Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Perry v. CohenTexas Supreme Court · 2008
  4. In the Interest of K.A.F.Texas Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Republic Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Mex-Tex, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2004

2,466 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