Bobby Robinson v. Home State County Mutual Insurance Company Appeal from 55th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued May 5, 2022 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-21-00681-CV ——————————— BOBBY ROBINSON, Appellant V. HOME STATE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 55th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2010-01278 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Bobby Robinson (“Appellant”) filed a notice of appeal seeking to challenge the trial court’s “Agreed Take Nothing Judgment” signed on August 16, 2011, in Cause No. 2010-01278, Bobby Robinson v. Home State County Mutual Insurance Company, Paragon Insurance Managers LLC d/b/a Paragon Insurance Group, Paragon Insurance Company, and Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, in the 55th District Court of Harris County, Texas. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A notice of appeal generally is due within thirty days after the judgment is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended to ninety days after the date the challenged judgment is signed if, within thirty days after the judgment is signed, any party files a motion for new trial, a motion to modify the judgment, a motion to reinstate or, under certain circumstances, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id.; TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a), (g). The time to file a notice of appeal may be extended if, within fifteen days after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, a party properly files a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3. A motion for extension of time is implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed under Rule 26.1, but within the fifteen-day extension period provided under Rule 26.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). The “Agreed Take Nothing Judgment” from which Appellant seeks to appeal was signed on August 16, 2011. The clerk’s record has not been filed. It is thus unclear whether Appellant filed a post-judgment motion extending his deadline to file a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Regardless, 2 Appellant’s notice of appeal would not have been timely, given that he filed it on November 30, 2021, more than ten years after the date of the judgment he challenges. Without a timely notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1; Lab. Corp. of Am. v. Mid-Town Surgical Ctr., Inc., 16 S.W.3d 527, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.) (“A timely notice of appeal is a requirement for this Court’s jurisdiction.”). On March 24, 2022, this Court notified Appellant that his appeal could be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless Appellant demonstrated within fourteen days that this Court has jurisdiction over his appeal. Appellant did not respond. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Landau, Hightower, and Rivas-Molloy. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
