Chojnacki v. Court of Appeals for First Supreme Judicial Dist.
| Decision Date | 26 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C-3943,C-3943 |
| Parties | Jerome E. CHOJNACKI, Relator, v. The COURT OF APPEALS FOR the FIRST SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Kirklin, Boudreaux and Joseph, Glen M. Boudreaux, Edward J. Howlett, II and Deborah H. Peveto, Houston, for relator.
Haynes and Fullenweider, Clinard J. Hanby, Houston, for respondents.
This is an original proceeding in which Jerome E. Chojnacki seeks to have this court issue a writ of mandamus directing the court of appeals to rescind an order issued by it which granted the third motion of the real party in interest, AMI Systems, Inc., for an extension of time to file its statement of facts. Without hearing oral argument, we conditionally grant the mandamus. TEX.R.CIV.P. 483.
In August, 1984, the trial court rendered judgment non obstante veredicto for Mr. Chojnacki in a suit by AMI Systems, Inc. In October, the court of appeals granted AMI's first motion for extension of time to file its appellate brief and the statement of facts. On December 13, the court of appeals granted AMI's second motion for extension of time. That order set December 17 as the date for filing the statement of facts and January 16, 1985 as the date for filing AMI's appellate brief.
On January 16, AMI filed its third motion for extension of time to file the statement of facts, more than 15 days after the last day for filing.
In B.D. Click Company, Inc., v. Safari Drilling Corporation, 638 S.W.2d 860, 862 (Tex.1982), this court held that "an appellant's motion for extension of time to file the transcript and statement of facts must be filed within fifteen days of the last day for filing as prescribed by Rule 21c."
AMI cites the case of Gibraltar Savings Association v. Hamilton Air Mart, Inc., 662 S.W.2d 632 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1983, no writ) in support of its argument that this court's opinion in B.D. Click applies only to initial motions for extension of time. We disapprove the holding in Gibraltar Savings.
Because the court of appeals' actions in granting AMI's untimely motion for extension of time directly conflicts with this court's holding in B.D. Click, we conditionally grant the relief prayed for. A writ of mandamus will not issue if the court of appeals abides by this decision.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Ninth Court of Appeals
... ... No. D-3492 ... Supreme Court of Texas ... Oct. 27, 1993 ... of the discretion granted it by the word "may" in the first line ... In its opinion withdrawing its ... such an extent that "the trial would be a waste of judicial resources." 827 S.W.2d at 843. While imprecise, I am ... Court of Appeals, 811 S.W.2d 570 (Tex.1991); Chojnacki v. First Court of Appeals, 699 S.W.2d 193 (Tex.1985); ... ...
-
McDonald v. Brennan
... ... No. 08-84-00442-CV ... Court of Appeals of Texas, ... Feb. 5, 1986 ... The Appellant filed his first motion for extension of time in which to file the ... , 638 S.W.2d 860 (Tex.1982), and Chojnacki v. Court of Appeals for the First Supreme ... ...
-
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Teletron Energy Management, Inc.
... ... No. D-3088 ... Supreme Court of Texas ... Argued Oct. 12, 1993 ... timely filed; we agree with the court of appeals that it was. The other is whether lost profits ... 838 S.W.2d 305 ... We first consider TI's contention that the statement of ... Chojnacki v. First Court of Appeals, 699 S.W.2d 193 ... ...
-
E T J v. State, 05-88-00390-CV
... ... No. 05-88-00390-CV ... Court of Appeals of Texas, ... March 8, 1989 ... W.D. Ballard, Asst. Dist. Atty., F. Duncan Thomas, Dist. Atty., for Hunt ... Chojnacki v. First Court of Appeals, 699 S.W.2d 193, 193 ... 368 (1970). The United States Supreme Court said that juveniles need the assistance of ... ...