From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

OKC Corp. v. UPG, Inc.

Supreme Court of Texas
Sep 19, 1990
795 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. 1990)

Opinion

No. D-0297.

September 19, 1990.


MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR ORDER

Came on for consideration petitioners' motion for extension of time in which to file application for writ of error, and the motion is denied. Although this court may grant extensions for premature filing of applications, the court will usually decline to grant an unnecessary extension order. The extension sought here, from the facts alleged in the motion, is unnecessary because:

(1) Concurrently with the overruling of all motions for rehearing in that court, the court of appeals issued a new opinion. As a matter of law issuing the new opinion constituted handing down an opinion in connection with the overruling of a motion for rehearing within the meaning of Tex.R.App.P. 100(d). Petitioners were entitled to and did file a further motion for rehearing within 15 days after the action occurred.

(2) Petitioners' further motion is a timely filed motion for rehearing under Tex.R.App.P. 130(b). Petitioners' application for writ of error is not due until thirty days after the court of appeals rules on all timely filed motions for rehearing, including in particular petitioners' further motion for rehearing.

(3) The amendment to Tex.R.App.P. 130(b) effective September 1, 1990, applies to petitioners even though their original motion for rehearing was overruled August 22, 1990. Under the rule prior to the effective date of amendment, petitioners' further motion for rehearing would have been a timely motion for rehearing. The thirty-day period for timely filing an application for writ of error under either the amended or prior version of the rule does not begin to run until the court of appeals rules on petitioners' further motion for rehearing. If other parties' timely further motions for rehearing are still pending, or if petitioners become entitled to and do file another further motion for rehearing, the thirty-day period for filing the application will not begin to run until the court of appeals has ruled on all such motions.


Summaries of

OKC Corp. v. UPG, Inc.

Supreme Court of Texas
Sep 19, 1990
795 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. 1990)
Case details for

OKC Corp. v. UPG, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:OKC CORP. and OKC Corp. Liquidating Trust, Petitioners, v. UPG, INC.…

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Sep 19, 1990

Citations

795 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. 1990)

Citing Cases

Roy v. State

The Court has before it the State's May 22, 1991 motion for rehearing, timely filed after this Court issued…

Fazio v. Hames

Appellants' motion is denied as unnecessary. See OKC Corp. v. UPG, Inc. 795 S.W.2d 162, 162 (Tex. 1990). We…