Walker v. Kelley

Court of Appeals of Texas

Walker v. Kelley

395 S.W.2d 402

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 21, 1965

Docket4377

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 395 S.W.2d 402 (Walker v. Kelley) 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

Walker v. Kelley, 395 S.W.2d 402 (Tex. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

Appellants gave notice of appeal from an adverse judgment. Transcript and Statement of Facts were due to be filed in this court on May 7, 1965. Extensions of time for filing same were granted by this court to August 5, 1965, and to October 5, 1965. Transcript and Statement of Facts were not filed on October 5th, 1965, and no request for further extension of time was filed prior to October 5th, 1965. On October 13, 1965 appellants filed a motion for further extension of time in which to file Transcript and Statement of Facts.

Since the time for filing Transcript and Statement of Facts, as heretofore extended, has expired, this court does not have and cannot acquire jurisdiction to grant further extension of time. Tian v. Kempenski, Tex.Civ.App. (n. w. h.), 275 S.W.2d 165; Rule 356, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Motion for further extension of time is dismissed, and the attempted appeal is dismissed, for want of jurisdiction.

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

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

Appellants gave notice of appeal from an adverse judgment. Transcript and Statement of Facts were due to be filed in this court on May 7, 1965. Extensions of time for filing same were granted by this court to August 5, 1965, and to October 5, 1965. Transcript and Statement of Facts were not filed on October 5th, 1965, and no request for further extension of time was filed prior to October 5th, 1965. On October 13, 1965 appellants filed a motion for further extension of time in which to file Transcript and Statement of Facts.

Since the time for filing Transcript and Statement of Facts, as heretofore extended, has expired, this court does not have and cannot acquire jurisdiction to grant further extension of time. Tian v. Kempenski, Tex.Civ.App. (n. w. h.), 275 S.W.2d 165; Rule 356, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Motion for further extension of time is dismissed, and the attempted appeal is dismissed, for want of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

395 S.W.2d 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-kelley-texapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack