Rodriguez v. Flores
| Decision Date | 20 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 14680,14680 |
| Parties | Rafaela P. RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. Maria Guadalupe P. FLORES et vir, Appellees. . San Antonio |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Oscar J. Pena, Laredo, for appellant.
Roger C. Rocha, Laredo, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a take-nothing judgment of appellant's suit to set aside her deed to appellee Maria Guadalupe P. Flores. The record was timely filed in this Court on December 14, 1967, however, no brief was filed by appellant within thirty days as required by Rule 414, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The cause was set in regular order for submission on March 6, 1968, and both parties were notified of this submission by letter from the Clerk of this Court, mailed February 2, 1968.
On February 15, 1968, being sixty-three days after the record was filed, appellant filed her motion for leave to file her brief, three copies of which were tendered with said motion. As good cause it was alleged, 'originally appellant did not intend to file a brief, as all pertinent matters are contained in the transcript, which is rather short in this case and which is self explanatory.' It was further alleged that 'upon further consideration Appellant's attorney has decided to submit a brief more concisely setting forth the pertinent matters in the case.' This motion for extension of time was opposed by appellees for failure to show good cause and because it would not allow them time to file a reply brief before submission of the cause.
Appellant's motion does not show good cause for failure to timely file her brief. In Appellate Procedure in Texas, § 12.10(2), the question of 'good cause' is considered, and it is there pointed out that the courts have established a high standard. As a general rule, unless the reason for failure to timely file the brief is based in part on the impact of some event beyond the immediate control of the litigant and which was to some extent unforeseeable, good cause does not exist. Lee v. Owen, 404 S.W.2d 84 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1966, no writ); Assembly of God Church of Tahoka v. Bradley, 196 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1946, no writ); 4 Tex.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, § 633.
Under Rule 415, T.R.C.P., the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution when appellant has failed to timely file his brief unless good cause is shown for such failure and appellee has not suffered material injury thereby. It is seen that if appellant's motion were granted appellees would have less than twenty-five days in which to file a reply...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castillo v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...further time for filing briefs, and courts of appeals are given broad discretion regarding the time for filing the same. Rodriquez v. Flores, 426 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1968, no In his motion for extension of time, counsel for appellants explained that he completed the a......
-
Continental Oil Co. v. Dobie
...the brief was prevented by some event beyond the immediate control of the litigant and which was to some extent unforeseeable. Rodriquez v. Flores, 426 S.W.2d 285 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1968, no writ); Lee v. Owen, 404 S.W.2d 84 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1966, no writ); Texaco Inc. v. Jo......
-
Barham v. Combs, 17620
...the Court to dismiss the appeal. I_ _ B_ _ v. State, 513 S.W.2d 303 (Corpus Christi, Tex.Civ.App., 1974, no writ hist.); Rodriguez v. Flores, 426 S.W.2d 285 (San Antonio, Tex.Civ.App., 1968, no writ hist.); Dixieland Petroleum Corporation v. Brown,216 S.W.2d 235 (Eastland, Tex.Civ.App., 194......
-
Lueck v. Carter
...office move was made. We are convinced that appellant did not make a showing of good cause for late filing of his brief. See Rodriguez v. Flores, 426 S.W.2d 285 (San Antonio Civ.App., 1968, no writ hist.). We are aware of the fact that this court has a great deal of discretion in deciding t......