Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Appellee argues that although he acknowledges receiving the notice of claim more than 60 days before the suit was brought, because appellant failed to notify him by certified mail, return receipt requested, the notice was somehow deficient. Appellee does not claim that he was harmed in any way by the failure to receive notice via certified, return receipt requested first class mail. We believe that appellant has fulfilled the primary purpose of the statute. See Netherland v. Wittner, 662 S.W.2d 786, 787 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, writ refd n.r.e.). Several other courts have held that when dealing with notice requirements, the technicalities of the method of service are not crucial when the purposes of the notice statute have been satisfied. See Netherlands 662 S.W.2d at 787 (<HOLDING>); Hill v. W.E. Brittain, Inc., 405 S.W.2d 803, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where appellant acknowledged timely receiving notice by regular mail appellant appeared and fully participated at the trial and appellant made no claim that he was harmed in any way appellee had fulfilled the primary purposes of texrcivp 21a (B) holding that if an appellee raises an argument not addressed by the appellant in its opening brief the appellant may reply  citation omitted (C) holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension (D) holding that appellant had waived any objection to an instruction that he had himself introduced and which was amended by the state without objection from appellant (E) holding trial court reversibly erred in not permitting appellant to withdraw his plea where court erroneously stated appellant could appeal motion was in fact not dispositive and appellant was entitled to rely on the courts statement
Output (English): holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension