Tiffany Carlen Hurd v. Paul Bryan Reading
This text of Tiffany Carlen Hurd v. Paul Bryan Reading (Tiffany Carlen Hurd v. Paul Bryan Reading) 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
NUMBER 13-22-00146-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
TIFFANY CARLEN HURD, Appellant,
v.
PAUL BRYAN READING, Appellee.
On appeal from the 413th District Court of Johnson County, Texas.
ORDER
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina Order Per Curiam
Appellee Paul Bryan Reading has filed a “Response/Opposition to Appellant’s
Late Supplementation of Record.” In his filing, Reading moves this Court to deny
appellant Tiffany Carlen Hurd’s supplementation of the record or disregard the
supplemental exhibits in our review of the case. From our review of the record and documents on file before this Court, it appears that the opposed supplemental exhibits
filed were part of the trial court record and intended to be included in the appellate record
as slip sheets are included in the clerk’s record referencing a “Provided USB,” which was
not provided to this Court. TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(1) (“If a relevant item has been omitted
from the clerk’s record, the trial court, the appellate court, or any party may by letter direct
the trial court clerk to prepare, certify, and file in the appellate court a supplement
containing the omitted item.”). As such, we deny Reading’s request to disregard the
supplemental exhibits. See id. R. 34.5(b)(4) (“An appellate court must not refuse to file
the clerk’s record or a supplemental clerk’s record because of a failure to timely request
items to be included in the clerk’s record.”).
Because both parties filed their appellate briefs in this matter prior to the
supplementation, Reading was not afforded the opportunity to respond to the contents of
the supplemental exhibits. Accordingly, within fifteen days of this Court’s order, Reading
shall file a letter brief addressing those issues directly related to the supplemental exhibits
provided.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed on the 25th day of July, 2022.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Tiffany Carlen Hurd v. Paul Bryan Reading, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiffany-carlen-hurd-v-paul-bryan-reading-texapp-2022.