From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pike-Grant v. Grant

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Jun 24, 2015
No. 04-12-00315-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 24, 2015)

Summary

holding that when party has filed answer, she is entitled to forty-five days' notice of trial under Rule 245

Summary of this case from Templeton Mortg. Corp. v. Poenisch

Opinion

No. 04-12-00315-CV

06-24-2015

Dakota Snow PIKE-GRANT, Appellant v. Jeffrey Alan GRANT, Appellee


From the 83rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas
Trial Court No. 27731
Honorable Carl Pendergrass, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On November 14, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court issued the mandate in this appeal in which it ordered our prior judgment reversed and the matter remanded to this court for further proceedings in accordance with its decision. Accordingly, the parties may file amended briefs as they deem necessary.

We ORDER appellant to file her amended brief, if any, in this court on or before July 24, 2015. The appellee's amended brief, if any, will be due in this court thirty days after the date appellant's amended brief is filed. If either party chooses not to file an amended brief, that party is ORDERED to notify this court of such fact in writing on or before July 6, 2015. If appellant decides not to file an amended brief, appellee may still file an amended brief, and such brief will be due thirty days after the date appellant advises this court in writing that she does not intend to file an amended brief.

We order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on appellant, appellee, and all counsel — those representing the parties in this court and in the Texas Supreme Court.

/s/_________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 24th day of June, 2015.

/s/_________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court


Summaries of

Pike-Grant v. Grant

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Jun 24, 2015
No. 04-12-00315-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 24, 2015)

holding that when party has filed answer, she is entitled to forty-five days' notice of trial under Rule 245

Summary of this case from Templeton Mortg. Corp. v. Poenisch

stating that a "trial court's failure to comply with the notice rule in a contested case deprives a party of the constitutional right to be present at the hearing, to voice objections, and is a violation of fundamental due process[]"

Summary of this case from $2,424.21 in U.S. Currency v. State
Case details for

Pike-Grant v. Grant

Case Details

Full title:Dakota Snow PIKE-GRANT, Appellant v. Jeffrey Alan GRANT, Appellee

Court:Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

Date published: Jun 24, 2015

Citations

No. 04-12-00315-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 24, 2015)

Citing Cases

Templeton Mortg. Corp. v. Poenisch

However, the rule goes on to provide that "noncontested cases," i.e., cases in which no answer has been…

$2,424.21 in U.S. Currency v. State

Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 84, 108 S.Ct. 896, 99 L.Ed.2d 75 (1988).Id.; see also Grant…