Court Opinion

ID: 9683813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:37:18.730713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:50.404160
License: Public Domain

EVANS, Justice,
concurring.
The docket entry in the case at bar does not, in my opinion, conflict with any recitation contained in the trial court’s signed order reinstating the cause. The docket entry is complete and explicit in itself and shows that on June 11, 1979, the court sustained the motion to reinstate. The court’s formal signed order of reinstatement recites that the motion to reinstate was heard on June 11,1979, the same date as reflected by the docket entry, and there is, therefore no conflict between the docket entry and the signed written order. Thus, this case is distinguishable from N—S—W v. Snell, 561 S.W.2d 798 (Tex.1977). In my opinion, the docket entry merely serves to explain the trial court’s use of the term “signed and rendered” in its formal order, indicating by that term the date when the court signed the order for purposes of appeal.
The record shows, however, that the trial court did not sign the formal written order within the 30 day time limit imposed by Rule 165a Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. In view of the recent decision of the Texas Supreme Court in Walker v. Harrison, referred to in the majority opinion, I concur in the holding of the majority that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case by failing to sign its written order of reinstatement within the requisite time period.