Rayburn v. State
| Decision Date | 25 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. A-8847,A-8847 |
| Citation | 356 S.W.2d 774,163 Tex. 450 |
| Parties | Madison RAYBURN, Judge, et al., Petitioners, v. The STATE of Texas, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Dow & Dow, M. Leon Kalvort, Houston, for petitioner.
Will Wilson, Atty. Gen., Austin, L. P. Lollar, Morgan Nesbitt and Edward A. Cazares, Assts. Atty Gen., for respondent.
Contrary to the decision of the Amarillo Court of Civil Appeals in City of Amarillo v. Adams, Tex.Civ.App., 342 S.W.2d 371 (wr. dis.), the Texarkana Court of Civil Appeals has held that the period for filing objections to the award of the commissioners in a condemnation proceeding as provided in Article 3266, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.Stat., is not enlarged by the provisions of Rule 4, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. State v. Rayburn, Tex.Civ.App., 352 S.W.2d 357. We are in agreement with the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals in the present case, because the Rules of Civil Procedure do not operate to extend the time provided by statute within which an appeal may be taken to the courts in a proceeding originally administrative in nature. The application for writ of error is Refused, No Reversible Error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pecos Cnty. v. Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P.
...of their argument that Section 311.014 and Rule 4 do not apply to judicial review of administrative matters. See Rayburn v. State, 163 Tex. 450, 356 S.W.2d 774 (1962), Superior Oil Company v. Railroad Commission of Texas, 519 S.W.2d 479, 484 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.), B......
-
Sugar Land Tel. Co. v. Richard, s. 1150
...as authority for its position State v. Rayburn, 352 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1961), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 163 Tex. 450, 356 S.W.2d 774 (1962). That case is no authority for the proposition that we have original jurisdiction in these matters. There, the Court of Civil Appe......
-
Carson v. Hudson, 11351
...makes no provision for motions for rehearing and such a provision cannot be supplied by the Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rayburn v. State, 163 Tex. 450, 356 S.W.2d 774. Nor are we impressed with appellant's assertion that since the statute states that the decision 'may be appealed' and an ......
-
State v. Touchy, B2065
...provision, and the supreme court held in 1962 that Rule 4, Tex.R.Civ.P., did not apply to eminent domain statutes. Rayburn v. State, 163 Tex. 450, 356 S.W.2d 774 (1962). Subsequently the article was amended to include a computation provision identical to that in Rule The significant phrase ......