You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Elbert Davis v. Ebbie Loving D/B/A A-K-A Bail Bonds

Citation: Not availableDocket: 14-15-00059-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 21, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Elbert Davis, the Appellant, filed a motion for leave to extend the time to file his brief in the case against Ebbie Loving, doing business as A-K-A Bail Bonds. The motion indicates that the Appellee's brief was originally due on August 5, 2015, but the Appellee requested a 16-day extension, proposing a new deadline of August 21, 2015. This is the first extension request made by the Appellant. The Appellee explains the need for additional time due to the solo-practitioner status of their counsel, who has a demanding schedule. The motion concludes with a request for the court to grant the extension until August 21, 2015. The document is signed by Kurt G. Clarke, the attorney for the Appellant, who also certifies that a copy of the motion was sent to the Appellee's counsel, Eddie Gomez, on August 20, 2015.

Legal Issues Addressed

Certification of Service in Motion Filing

Application: The Appellant's attorney certifies that the motion for extension was served to the Appellee's counsel in compliance with procedural requirements.

Reasoning: The document is signed by Kurt G. Clarke, the attorney for the Appellant, who also certifies that a copy of the motion was sent to the Appellee's counsel, Eddie Gomez, on August 20, 2015.

First Extension Request in Appellate Procedure

Application: The Appellant's motion represents the initial request for an extension of time to file the brief in this appellate case.

Reasoning: This is the first extension request made by the Appellant.

Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief

Application: The Appellant requests an extension of time to file his brief due to the scheduling demands of the counsel, who is a solo practitioner.

Reasoning: The Appellee explains the need for additional time due to the solo-practitioner status of their counsel, who has a demanding schedule.