Jones v. City of Houston
Tex.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Joan Rose v. Truck Yard NMTX, LLC Tex. App.-Fort Worth
- 2026Clarissa Roman Acosta v. City of Corinth
- 2026In the Interest of C.B., a Child v. the State of Texas Tex. App.-Fort Worth
- 2026Nancy Alexander v. Venture Property Tex. App.-El Paso
- 2026Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin Tex. App.-Fort Worth
- 2026Esdras Nehemias Pineda Orellana v. National Specialty Insurance Company Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
- 2026Willie R. Jones v. Kent C. Noell, D/B/A Denton Chiropractic Center Tex. App.-Amarillo
- 2026Clay Bailey v. Chandler Carrens and Karen Carrens Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
- 2025Rich Robins v. State Bar of Texas, Commission for Lawyer Discipline, and Chief Disciplinary Counsel Tex. App.
- 2025Forest Hills Home Association v. Henry Rogers and Dominique Ross Tex. App.
Cites 1 case
- Verburgt v. Dorner
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Kenneth S. JONES, Petitioner, v. CITY OF HOUSTON, Mayor Bob Lanier, et al., Respondents.
Judges
- PHILLIPS, Chief Justice, GONZALEZ, SPECTOR and OWEN, Justices, joined.
- ENOCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ABBOTT and HANKINSON, JJ., joined.
- BAKER, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Attorneys
- Kenneth S. Jones, Houston, for Petitioner.
- Andrea Chan, Houston, for Respondents.
Delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
PHILLIPS, Chief Justice, GONZALEZ, SPECTOR and OWEN, Justices, joined.
Former Rule 41(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provided that to perfect an appeal in a civil ease in which security for costs was required, “the bond or affidavit [of indigency] in lieu thereof shall be filed with the- clerk ... within ninety days after the judgment is signed if a timely motion for new trial has been filed by any party_” Former Rule 41(a)(2) of the appellate rules provided that “[a]n extension of time may be granted by the appellate court for late filing of a cost bond or ... affidavit, if such bond or ... affidavit is filed not later than fifteen days after the last day allowed and, within the same period, a motion is filed in the appellate court reasonably explaining the need for such extension.” In Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex.1997), we held that “a motion for extension of time is implied when a party, acting [in] good faith, files a cost bond within the fifteen-day period in which Rule 41(a)(2) permits parties to file a motion to extend.” The same holding applies to an affidavit in lieu of bond, which is simply an alternate device for perfecting appeal under former Rule 41.
Before we decided Verburgt, the court of appeals dismissed this ease for want of jurisdiction because the appellant, Kenneth Jones, did not file his affidavit in lieu of bond before the ninetieth day after judgment was signed, and did not file a motion for extension within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the affidavit. However, Jones’s filed his affidavit within the fifteen-day period for filing a motion for extension. Thus, under Verburgt, Jones’s filing implies a motion for extension. If Jones can reasonably explain the need for an extension, then he should be entitled to prosecute his appeal.
In response to the court of appeals’ notice to Jones that his appeal would be dismissed if he could not demonstrate jurisdiction, the court received a fax from a physician in Baltimore, Maryland, stating that Jones was under his care and required additional time to pursue his appeal. In its opinion dismissing the ease, the court offered that it was “not unsympathetic to [Jones’s] need for medical treatment,” from which we might infer that the court would have accepted the physician’s statement as a reasonable explanation for an extension of time if permitted to do so. But we are reluctant to read too much into the court’s brief statement and leave the determination whether Jones has reasonably explained his need for an extension of time to file his affidavit to be made by the court of appeals on remand.
Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we grant Jones’s petition for review, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, and remand the case to that court for further proceedings. Tex.R.App. P. 59.1.
ENOCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ABBOTT and HANKINSON, JJ., joined.
BAKER, J., filed a dissenting opinion.