State Bar of Texas v. Humphreys, D-3811

Decision Date23 June 1993
Docket NumberNo. D-3811,D-3811
PartiesSTATE BAR OF TEXAS, Petitioner, v. Lloyd E. HUMPHREYS, Respondent.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

PER CURIAM.

The Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, which became effective on May 1, 1992, provide for an appeal from a determination of the Board of Disciplinary Appeals directly to this court. We consider the appropriate procedure for such appeals.

Rule 7.11 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure provides:

An appeal from a determination of the Board of Disciplinary Appeals ... must be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court within fourteen days after the receipt by the appealing party of the determination of the Board of Disciplinary Appeals from which the appeal is taken. Except as expressly herein provided, the appeal must be made pursuant to the then applicable Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

It is unclear from this rule, however, whether the entire appeal or merely a notice of appeal must be filed within the fourteen-day period or whether the timetable for briefs is governed by that applicable to the courts of appeals or the supreme court.

Because an appeal from the Board of Disciplinary Appeals resembles that taken from a trial court to the court of appeals, similar procedures should apply. Within fourteen days after receipt of notice of a final determination by the Board of Disciplinary Appeals, a notice of appeal must be filed directly with this court. The record must be filed within sixty days after the Board's determination. The appealing party's brief is due thirty days after the record is filed, and the responding party's brief must be filed within twenty-five days thereafter.

To ensure that all parties are aware of the appropriate procedures, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals is instructed to provide a copy of this order to all parties with any final determination it renders.

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Jim Olive Photography v. Univ. of Hous. Sys.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 18 Junio 2021
  • Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 8 Mayo 1998
    ... ... No. 95-0771 ... Supreme Court of Texas ... Argued Oct. 24, 1996 ... Decided March 13, 1998 ... Rehearing ... that the refusal to approve the planned development violated their state and federal constitutional rights to procedural due process, substantive ... ...
  • Weingarten Realty Investors v. Albertson's, Inc., Civ.A. H-98-0912.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 24 Septiembre 1999
    ... ... No. Civ.A. H-98-0912 ... United States District Court, S.D. Texas ... September 24, 1999 ... Page 826 ... COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED ... ," informing Albertson's that it was "being joined as a party to the State's condemnation proceedings," noting that it could avoid being named a ... ...
  • Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 14 Febrero 2002
    ... 71 S.W.3d 18 ... TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND, Texas, Appellant and Appellee, ... STAFFORD ESTATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ... and expert witness fees under United States Code section 1988 if a state remedy adequately compensates the developer for any taking resulting from ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT