Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Widget HTML #1

(DOWNLOAD) "Joanne Nix Adams v. H. R. Management and La Plaza" by Fourth District, San Antonio No. 04-84-00562-CV Court of Appeals of Texas " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

Joanne Nix Adams v. H. R. Management and La Plaza

📘 Read Now     📥 Download


eBook details

  • Title: Joanne Nix Adams v. H. R. Management and La Plaza
  • Author : Fourth District, San Antonio No. 04-84-00562-CV Court of Appeals of Texas
  • Release Date : January 21, 1985
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 77 KB

Description

On Appellant's First Motion for Reconsideration En Banc of Appellant's Second Motion to Extend Time for Filing Record MOTION GRANTED; TIME FOR FILING STATEMENT OF FACTS EXTENDED TO APRIL 25, 1985. In two previous opinions we have considered appellant's requests for additional time in which to file her statement of facts. In the first opinion dated February 28, 1985, we granted the motion to extend time for filing the record for the reason that the request included both the transcript and the statement of facts, and a reasonable explanation for extending the time to file the transcript was presented. See Embry v. Bel-Aire Corp., 502 S.W.2d 543, 544 (Tex. 1973); Hill Chemicals Co. v. Miller, 462 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex. 1971); Duncan v. Duncan, 371 S.W.2d 873, 874 (Tex. 1963); Anzaldua v. Richardson, 279 S.W.2d 169, 170-71 (Tex. Civ. App.--San Antonio 1955, no writ). We denied the second request for an extension of time in which to file the statement of facts in an opinion dated April 3, 1985. Although the motion was couched in terms of a request for extension of time file the record, the transcript had already been filed, and thus the only matter presented for our consideration was whether to extend time to file the statement of facts. We denied the motion because appellant had not filed a written request with the court reporter for the preparation of the statement of facts by December 13, 1984, the time by which the appeal was to be perfected. Odom v. Olafson, 675 S.W.2d 581, 582 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1984, writ dism'd w.o.j.); Rule 377(a).1 Written request to the court reporter was made on December 26, 1984, thirteen days after the time prescribed for perfecting the appeal. Appellant has not filed a motion for reconsideration en banc of our denial of her motion for an extension of time.


Download Free Books "Joanne Nix Adams v. H. R. Management and La Plaza" PDF ePub Kindle