Guadalupe County v. Woodlake Partners, Inc. and Woodlake Partners, L.P.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 3, 2016
Docket04-16-00253-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Guadalupe County v. Woodlake Partners, Inc. and Woodlake Partners, L.P. (Guadalupe County v. Woodlake Partners, Inc. and Woodlake Partners, L.P.) 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.

Bluebook
Guadalupe County v. Woodlake Partners, Inc. and Woodlake Partners, L.P., (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas June 3, 2016

No. 04-16-00253-CV

GUADALUPE COUNTY, Appellant

v.

WOODLAKE PARTNERS, INC. and Woodlake Partners, L.P., Appellees

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-1270-CV The Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

ORDER Appellant Guadalupe County attempts to appeal an order denying summary judgment based on an assertion of immunity by a political subdivision. An appeal from such an order is accelerated. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (a)(5) (West Supp. 2015); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1; see also City of San Antonio v. Hernandez, 53 S.W.3d 404, 406 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 2001, pet. denied). The trial court signed the order on March 29, 2016. Because this is an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal was due April 18, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b) (providing a notice of appeal in an accelerated appeal must be filed within twenty days after the order is signed). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on May 3, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Although appellant filed a notice of appeal within the fifteen-day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3, it 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). 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).

We therefore ORDER appellant to file, within fifteen days from the date of this order, 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). _________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 3rd day of June, 2016.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court

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

Related

Verburgt v. Dorner
959 S.W.2d 615 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)
City of San Antonio v. Hernandez
53 S.W.3d 404 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Guadalupe County v. Woodlake Partners, Inc. and Woodlake Partners, L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guadalupe-county-v-woodlake-partners-inc-and-woodlake-partners-lp-texapp-2016.