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.

Jerry Scarbrough, Denise Steele, and Melissa Victoria Deaton v. Helen Purser, Sue E. Purser A/K/A Sue E. Van Zanten, Gary W. Purser, Jr., Joann M. Purser, and Elizabeth H. Tipton

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-13-00025-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 8, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In the case of Scarbrough v. Purser, Michele Barber Chimene filed a Motion to Take Judicial Notice with the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. In her certificate of conference, she initially indicated an inability to contact Daryl Moore regarding his position on the motion. Subsequently, she received communication from Moore, who expressed his opposition to the Motion. The correspondence is dated October 8, 2015, and includes a notice of filing with the court clerk, Jeffrey D. Kyle. The document concludes with Chimene's signature and copies sent to Moore and J. Crews.

Legal Issues Addressed

Certificate of Conference Requirement

Application: The necessity for parties to communicate their positions on motions is illustrated by Chimene's initial attempt to contact Moore and the subsequent expression of opposition.

Reasoning: In her certificate of conference, she initially indicated an inability to contact Daryl Moore regarding his position on the motion.

Judicial Notice in Appellate Proceedings

Application: The case involves a motion filed for judicial notice in an appellate court, highlighting procedural requirements and communication between parties regarding the motion.

Reasoning: In the case of Scarbrough v. Purser, Michele Barber Chimene filed a Motion to Take Judicial Notice with the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas.

Opposition to Motions

Application: Moore's expressed opposition to the motion underscores the procedural aspect of formally recording dissent in appellate proceedings.

Reasoning: Subsequently, she received communication from Moore, who expressed his opposition to the Motion.