Second Court of Appeals

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of October 16, 2023.

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dollard, No. 02-22-00289-CV (Oct. 19, 2023) (Sudderth, C.J., joined by Birdwell and Walker, JJ.).

Held:  Appellant’s localized computer problem—its discovery that its electronic motion for new trial had become corrupted—occurred prior to Appellant’s transmission of its motion to the e-filing service provider, and the corrupted file had nothing to do with the trial court or e-filing service provider, so the issue was not a “technical failure” that could support deeming the motion timely under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21(f)(6).  Because Appellant did not “transmit [its motion for new trial] to the filing party’s electronic filing service provider” within “thirty days after the judgment . . . [wa]s signed,” Tex. R. Civ. P. 21(f)(5), 329b(a), because the trial court could “not enlarge the period for taking any action under the rules relating to new trials,” Tex. R. Civ. P. 5, and because the motion for new trial could not be deemed timely based on a “technical failure,” Tex. R. Civ. P. 21(f)(6), the motion for new trial was untimely, see Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a), and Appellant’s subsequent notice of appeal was similarly untimely, see Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.