Opinion

Ex Parte Ellis

  • 279 S.W.3d 1
  • 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 1924
  • 2008 WL 5772255
Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Filed
Mar 17, 2009
Status
Published
Author
Henson
On the bench
Law, Pemberton, Waldrop, Patterson, Puryear, Henson, Jones
Cited by
20 cases

observing that need for en banc review must be balanced with court’s mandate to do substantial justice and to hear accelerated matters at the earliest practicable time, citing Tex. R. App. P. 31.2 and 41.2(c)

How later courts described this case

  • observing that need for en banc review must be balanced with court’s mandate to do substantial justice and to hear accelerated matters at the earliest practicable time, citing Tex. R. App. P. 31.2 and 41.2(c)

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

DIANE M. HENSON, Justice,

dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion to the denial of en banc consideration in this case, issued August 29, 2008, I respectfully dissent from the denial of the State’s motion for en banc reconsideration.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.