City of Glen Rose, Texas and the Zoning Board of Adjustments of the City of Glen Rose, Texas v. Ernest and Shirley Reinke
This text of City of Glen Rose, Texas and the Zoning Board of Adjustments of the City of Glen Rose, Texas v. Ernest and Shirley Reinke (City of Glen Rose, Texas and the Zoning Board of Adjustments of the City of Glen Rose, Texas v. Ernest and Shirley Reinke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ACCEPTED 07-15-00266-cv SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS 9/17/2015 2:56:44 PM Vivian Long, Clerk
CASE NO. 07-15-00266-CV FILED IN IN THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS 7th COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS AT AMARILLO, TEXAS 9/17/2015 2:56:44 PM ***************************************** VIVIAN LONG CLERK CITY OF GLEN ROSE, TEXAS and THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF GLEN ROSE, TEXAS, Appellants, v.
ERNEST and SHIRLEY REINKE, Appellees. ***************************************** Appeal from Cause No. C10381 in the 249th Judicial District of Somervell County, the Honorable William Bosworth, Presiding ***************************************** APPELLANTS’ FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF *****************************************
Fredrick “Fritz” Quast Brady Pendleton fquast@toase.com Glen Rose City Attorney Texas Bar No. 24032974 brady@pendletonlawoffices.com Wayne K. Olson Law Offices of Bradley L. Pendleton wolson@toase.com P.O. Box 483 Texas Bar No. 15276900 Stephenville, Texas 76401 Ashley D. Dierker Telephone No.: (254) 965-4000 adierker@toase.com Fax No.: (817) 887-3196 Texas Bar No. 24065399 Members of the Law Firm of: Taylor, Olson, Adkins, Sralla & Elam, L.L.P. 6000 Western Place, Suite 200 Fort Worth, Texas 76107 Telephone No.: (817) 332-2580 Fax No.: (817) 332-4740
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS CASE NO. 07-15-00266-CV IN THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS AT AMARILLO, TEXAS ***************************************** CITY OF GLEN ROSE, TEXAS and THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF GLEN ROSE, TEXAS, Appellants, v.
ERNEST AND SHIRLEY REINKE, Appellees. ***************************************** APPELLANT’S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF ***************************************** TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS:
Now comes the City of Glen Rose, Texas, and The Board of Adjustment of the
City of Glen Rose, Texas (collectively, Appellants), Appellants before this Court and
defendants in the trial court. Appellants move this Court for an order extending time
to file their brief. Appellants will show the following in support of this motion:
1. Background Facts
The clerk’s record was filed August 19, 2015.
2. The Extension Requested
If no extension is granted by this Court, the Appellants’ opening brief is due on
Monday, September 21, 2015. Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(c). Appellants seek an
extension of time for a period of fourteen (14) days, until and including Monday,
1 October 5, 2015. This case is not accelerated and has not yet been set for submission.
3. Grounds for Extension
A reasonable explanation and good cause for the need for more time to file the
brief exists. Since the date the clerk’s record was filed, the undersigned counsel has
been occupied with numerous other matters, including:
(1) On September 22, 2015, the case of City of Carrollton v. Milan Hamrla,
et al., Case No. 02-15-00119-CV, is set for submission with oral
argument to the Second Court of Appeals. The undersigned counsel
represents the City of Carrollton and is preparing for argument in that
case. The record is extensive (over 3,600 pages in clerk’s record and a
five-volume reporter’s record).
(2) The undersigned counsel is city attorney for a city that has placed two of
its most senior officials on administrative leave pending an investigation
this summer. Late August and early September are important to the
budget adoption, property tax rate adoption, and the November election
cycle for cities, and the undersigned has been busy assisting interim
officials with these and related tasks.
(3) The undersigned counsel represents the Town of Annetta South in the
case of Town of Annetta South, et al. v. Seadrift Development, L.P., Case
No. 14-1052 before the Texas Supreme Court. Although review has not
2 been granted, on September 4, 2015, the supreme court requested full
briefing on the merits, with Annetta South’s brief due on October 4,
2015. The undersigned has begun preparing the brief.
No other attorney in counsel’s firm has had sufficient time, appellate expertise
and familiarity with this case to prepare the brief. Finally, this is the first extension
sought by the undersigned counsel in this case. The requested extension will not
unduly delay this case. The extension is not sought for purposes of delay, but so that
justice may be done.
4. Verification
Verification of this motion is not required pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure because the facts in support of this motion are either
within the appellate record, or are within the personal knowledge of the undersigned
counsel. Tex. R. App. P. 10.2.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
For the reasons stated, Appellants request this Court enter an order granting the
requested extension of time. Appellants seek an extension of time for a period of
fourteen (14) days, until and including Monday, October 5, 2015.
3 Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Fredrick “Fritz” Quast Fredrick “Fritz” Quast fquast@toase.com Texas Bar No. 24032974 Wayne K. Olson wolson@toase.com Texas Bar No. 15276900 Ashley D. Dierker adierker@toase.com Texas Bar No. 24065399
Taylor, Olson, Adkins, Sralla & Elam, L.L.P. 6000 Western Place, Suite 200 Fort Worth , Texas 76107 (817) 332-2580 - Telephone (817) 332-4740 - Fax
Brady Pendleton Glen Rose City Attorney brady@pendletonlawoffices.com Law Offices of Brady L. Pendleton P.O. Box 483 Stephenville, Texas 76401
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
4 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
A conference was held on the merits of this motion on September 17, 2015, between the counsel for Appellees, Stuart V. Neal, and the undersigned counsel for Appellant. This motion is not opposed.
/s/ Fredrick “Fritz” Quast Fredrick “Fritz” Quast
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true and correct copy of the above and foregoing motion has been served through the electronic service provider pursuant to Rule 9.5(b) on this day, September 17, 2015, to the following counsel for Appellees:
Stuart V. Neal snealattorney@hotmail.com 201 East Bridge Street Granbury, Texas 76048 Phone : (817) 573-9980 Fax: (817) 579-6280 Attorney for Appellees
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Rule 9.4(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the undersigned authority hereby certifies that according to the word processing software used to prepare this filing, the word count of this document is 531.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
City of Glen Rose, Texas and the Zoning Board of Adjustments of the City of Glen Rose, Texas v. Ernest and Shirley Reinke, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-glen-rose-texas-and-the-zoning-board-of-adjustments-of-the-city-of-tex-2015.