Crystal Clear Water Supply Corporation v. Texas General Land Office and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
This text of Crystal Clear Water Supply Corporation v. Texas General Land Office and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Crystal Clear Water Supply Corporation v. Texas General Land Office and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
FILED 14-1010 1/7/2015 5:32:53 PM tex-3689270 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK
NO. 14-1010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
CRYSTAL CLEAR WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION
Petitioner,
vs.
TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE AND TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Respondents.
Petitioner’s Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review
TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS:
Petitioner Crystal Clear Water Supply Corporation (“Crystal Clear”) files this
Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review
pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 53.7(f) and 10.5(b) and in support
thereof would respectfully show the Court as follows:
1. Crystal Clear is the Petitioner. Texas General Land Office (“GLO”) and
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) are the Respondents.
2. This case is on appeal from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas.
The style and number of the case in the Court of Appeals was: Court of Appeals Number: 03-13-00528-CV; Trial Court Case Number: D-1-GN-12-000305; Texas
General Land Office and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Appellants/
Cross-Appellees vs. Crystal Clear Water Supply Corporation, Appellee/
Cross-Appellant
3. The Court of Appeals issued its opinion on August 22, 2014 and ruled
on Crystal Clear’s timely filed Motion for Rehearing and Motion for Rehearing En
Banc on October 28, 2014.
4. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b) and 53.7(f), the Court may extend
the time for a party to file a petition for review.
5. Crystal Clear’s present deadline for filing its petition for review is
January 9, 2014. The deadline for filing a motion to extend the deadline for filing
Crystal Clear’s petition for review is January 24, 2015. This motion to extend the
deadline for filing Crystal Clear’s petition for review is filed within both the deadline
for filing the petition for review and the deadline for filing a motion to extend time
for filing the petition for review.
6. Crystal Clear respectfully requests an additional fourteen days to file its
petition for review, extending the time for that filing to January 23, 2015.
7. This is Crystal Clear’s second request for an extension of time in which
to file its petition for review. This request is unopposed by the parties to the case.
2 8. The facts relied upon by Crystal Clear to explain its need for an
extension of time in which to file its petition for review are as follows:
This is a complex case involving extensive briefing at the Court of Appeals.
In order to properly prepare the petition for review in this matter, Crystal Clear
respectfully requests an additional fourteen days in which to submit that petition for
review.
9. For the above and foregoing reasons, Crystal Clear respectfully requests
a fourteen (14) day extension of time, extending Crystal Clear’s deadline for filing
a petition for review until January 23, 2015.
10. This motion is not sought for purposes of delay, but rather, so that
justice may be done.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner Crystal Clear
respectfully requests and prays that this Court extend the filing time for the
Petitioner’s petition for review by granting an extension of fourteen (14) days and fix
such date of filing on the 23rd day of January, 2015.
3 Respectfully submitted,
THE TERRILL FIRM, P.C.
By: /s/ Scott R. Shoemaker______________ Paul M. Terrill III State Bar No. 00785094 Scott R. Shoemaker State Bar No. 24046836 810 W. 10th St. Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 474-9100 (512) 474-9888 (fax) pterrill@terrill-law.com sshoemaker@terrill-law.com
G. Alan Waldrop State Bar No. 20685700 The Waldrop Firm 810 West 10th Street Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 982-9950 (512) 474-9888 (fax) awaldrop@awaldroplaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
4 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.1, counsel for Crystal Clear, Scott Shoemaker, conferred with Mark Walters, counsel for TCEQ, and Broadus Spivey and Ken Ramirez, counsel for GLO. Counsel advised that this motion was unopposed.
/s/ Scott R. Shoemaker______________ Scott R. Shoemaker
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby CERTIFY that on January 7, 2015, a true and complete copy of the above was sent to the counsel of record via e-service or other electronic means:
Ken Ramirez Courtesy Copy sent via first-class mail LAW OFFICES OF KEN RAMIREZ 111 Congress Avenue, Ste 400 Austin, TX 78701
Broadus A. Spivey LAW OFFICES OF BROADUS A SPIVEY, PC 48 East Avenue Austin, TX 78701
ATTORNEYS FOR TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE
Mark Walters Priscilla Hubenak Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection and Admin. Law Division MC-018-1 P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711-2548 ATTORNEYS FOR TCEQ /s/ Scott R. Shoemaker Scott R. Shoemaker
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Crystal Clear Water Supply Corporation v. Texas General Land Office and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crystal-clear-water-supply-corporation-v-texas-general-land-office-and-texapp-2015.