Gonzales v. Rickman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that entry of judgment nunc pro tunc “did not extend the time in which to perfect appeal”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In the Interest of A.L.S., M.B.S., B.P.S. and F.J.S.
  Tex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)· 2011-03-01· cited 46×
• Gonzalez v. Doctors Hospital-East Loop
  Tex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston)· 1991-08-08· cited 24×
• In Re ALS
  Tex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)· 2011-05-12
• in the Interest of A.L.S., M.B.S., B.P.s, and F.J.S.
  Texas Supreme Court· 2011-06-28
• Thomas P. Jones v. Paleface Ranch Association
  Tex. App. Ct., 3rd Dist. (Austin)· 2002-08-08
• Johnnie M. Charles v. Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, on Behalf of Phico Insurance Company, an Impaired Carrier
  Tex. App. Ct., 3rd Dist. (Austin)· 2007-03-06
• Horacio Hoss Castillo v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 3rd Dist. (Austin)· 2012-08-29

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Ferguson
  Texas Supreme Court· 1971-07-21· cited 71×
• Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Callejo
  Tex. App. Ct., 5th Dist. (Dallas)· 1987-06-29· cited 30×
• Cavalier Corp. v. Store Enterprises, Inc.
  Tex. App. Ct., 5th Dist. (Dallas)· 1987-12-01· cited 19×
• Hamrah v. Hamrah
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 1977-01-11· cited 11×