Court Opinion

ID: 9765632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:11:18.072809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:12.464881
License: Public Domain

ENOCH, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. I agree that the Movants’ December 6, 1991 “motion to reconsider and second supplemental motion for extension of time to file the statement of facts” cannot properly be considered a supplemental motion, because all the previous motions had been disposed of at the time that it was filed. Additionally, it cannot be considered a proper motion to reconsider to the extent that it advances arguments not raised in the Movants’ earlier motions. Consequently, it is a new, untimely motion to extend the time to file the statement of facts. Thus, we are without authority to consider it. See Sifuentes v. Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n, 754 S.W.2d 784, 787 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988, no writ). Having reached that conclusion, I would go no further and decline to discuss the merits of the motion.