Arthur Butcher v. City of San Antonio, Acting by and Through Its Agent City Public Service Board D/B/A CPS Energy

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided July 22, 2015·No. 04-15-00338-CV·Published

Opinion

City of San Antonio, Acting by and through its agent City

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 21, 2015

No. 04-15-00338-CV

Arthur BUTCHER,

Appellant

v.

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Acting by and through its agent City Public Service Board d/b/a CPS Energy,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013-CI-05172 Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

SHOW CAUSE ORDER

The trial court signed a final judgment on April 27, 2015. Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed on May 27, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Appellant filed his notice of appeal on June 1, 2015. A motion for extension of time in which to file the notice of appeal was due on June 11, 2015, but was not filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3.

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Although appellant filed a notice of appeal within the fifteen-day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3, he did not file a motion for extension of time.

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26); Dimotsis v. State Farm Lloyds, 966 S.W.2d 657, 657 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (stating same under current Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C).

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant file, no later than August 5, 2015, a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

All appellate filing dates are ABATED pending further orders from this court.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 21st day of July, 2015.

Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Arthur Butcher v. City of San Antonio, Acting by and Through Its Agent City Public Service Board D/B/A CPS Energy, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Arthur Butcher v. City of San Antonio, Acting by and Through Its Agent City Public Service Board D/B/A CPS Energy (Arthur Butcher v. City of San Antonio, Acting by and Through Its Agent City Public Service Board D/B/A CPS Energy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Verburgt v. Dorner
959 S.W.2d 615 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)
Dimotsis v. Lloyds
966 S.W.2d 657 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)