Chad Fenley Davis v. David Clarke Rushing, Attorney, and David Clarke Rushing D/B/A the Law Office of David Rushing

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 10, 2023
• Docket: 14-21-00741-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Order filed January 10, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-21-00741-CV ____________

CHAD FENLEY DAVIS, Appellant

V.

DAVID CLARKE RUSHING, ATTORNEY, AND DAVID CLARKE RUSHING D/B/A THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID RUSHING, Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-15972

ORDER

On December 30, 2022, this court ordered a supplemental clerk’s record containing “Supplemented Response to Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Answer to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment” (including all exhibits and attachments) filed on July 26, 2021.

On January 10, 2023, this court received a supplemental clerk’s record that erroneously contained a different document that was filed on the same date as the document identified in the order. The erroneous document was similarly entitled “Supplemented Response to Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Answer to Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Expert Designation of Anton Paul Hajek III.”

The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on or before January 17, 2023, containing “Supplemented Response to Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Answer to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment” (including all exhibits and attachments) filed on July 26, 2021 (and not the erroneous document identified above).

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Hassan.