Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case of MHI Partnership, Ltd. and Mag Creek Partners, Ltd. v. City of League City, Texas, procedural matters are addressed regarding the filing and management of the appellate record. A supplemental clerk's record has been filed with Christopher Prine serving as the clerk. The case involves several parties, including Kenneth and Mary Hollar and others, with notices sent to multiple addresses in League City and Frisco, Texas. The appellate procedures dictate that if any party deems the reporter's record incomplete, they may request a supplement in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(d). Furthermore, the opinion specifies that the appellant's brief must be filed within 30 days, or 20 days for accelerated appeals, from the notice date once the clerk's record has been filed. Issues of undeliverable notices have been identified, highlighting the need for precise address management. The court's decision underscores adherence to procedural rules governing appellate filings and the management of notices in the judicial process.
Legal Issues Addressed
Deadlines for Filing Appellant's Briefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case outlines the time frame for filing an appellant's brief, specifying 30 days for standard appeals and 20 days for accelerated appeals, contingent upon the filing of the clerk's record.
Reasoning: Appellant's brief is due 30 days (or 20 days for accelerated appeals) from the date of the notice if the clerk's record has already been filed.
Filing and Notice Requirements under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(d)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case demonstrates the procedures for filing a supplemental clerk's record and the obligations of parties to notify the court if the reporter's record is incomplete, according to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(d).
Reasoning: If any party finds the reporter's record incomplete, they may request a supplement in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(d).
Undeliverable Notice Managementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The opinion highlights issues related to notice delivery, noting instances where notices were returned as undeliverable and underscoring the importance of accurate address management.
Reasoning: The notice includes multiple addresses for various individuals associated with the case, all of whom received notices that were returned as undeliverable.