Court Opinion

ID: 9681103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:44:07.784615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:32.284689
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OF DECISION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
HOWELL, Justice,
dissenting.
(Sept. 14, 1989)
I dissent from the consideration of this motion for rehearing. Our jurisdiction was concluded by the filing of the State’s petition for discretionary review on June 10, 1989. Alternatively, our jurisdiction was concluded fifteen days thereafter. Even if Tex.R.App.P. 101 be read to its most expansive limits, we have no jurisdiction to consider this motion for rehearing.
Compare: Ratcliff v. National County Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 745 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, writ dism’d w.o.j.) (on reh’g); Wadsworth Business Center v. Connell, 775 S.W.2d 663 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1989) (Howell, dissent on second motion for reh’g; Howell, dissent on third motion for reh’g).