Laketta Revell Jackson v. Adrienne Gilmore

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 11, 2011
Docket14-10-01020-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Laketta Revell Jackson v. Adrienne Gilmore (Laketta Revell Jackson v. Adrienne Gilmore) 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
Laketta Revell Jackson v. Adrienne Gilmore, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 11, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-10-01020-CV

LAKETTA REVELL JACKSON, Appellant

V.

ADRIENNE GILMORE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-14140

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed June 25, 2010.  Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial on July 7, 2010. Appellant=s notice of appeal was filed October 18, 2010.

When appellant has filed a timely motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusion of law, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days after the date the judgment is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).  Accordingly, appellant’s notice of appeal was due September 23, 2010.

Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed timely. 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, 617-18 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26).  The grace period expired on October 8, 2010.  Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed within the fifteen-day period provided by rule 26.3.

On December 10, 2010, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court=s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).  Appellant filed no response.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and Jamison.

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Laketta Revell Jackson v. Adrienne Gilmore, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laketta-revell-jackson-v-adrienne-gilmore-texapp-2011.