Tex. R. App. P. 9.2
Tex. R. App. P. 9.2
Notes and Comments
Comment to 1997 change: This is former Rule 4. Subdivision 9.4, prescribing the form of documents filed in the appellate courts, is changed and the form to be used is stated in significantly more detail. Former subdivisions (f) and (g), regarding service of documents, are merged into subdivision 9.5. Former Rule 6 is included as subdivision 9.6, but no substantive change is made. Other changes are made throughout the rule. Electronic filing is authorized by §§ 51.801-807 of the Government Code.
Comment to 2002 change: The change [to Rule 9.5(a)] clarifies that the filing party must serve a copy of the document filed on all other parties, not only in an appeal or review, but in original proceedings as well. The rule applies only to filing parties. Thus, when the clerk or court reporter is responsible for filing the record, as in cases on appeal, a copy need not be served on the parties. The rule for original civil proceedings, in which a party is responsible for filing the record, is stated in subdivision 52.7.
Subdivision 9.7 is added to provide express authorization for the practice of adopting by reference all or part of another party's filing.
Comment to 2008 change: Subdivision 9.3 is amended to reduce the number of copies of a motion for extension of time or response filed in the Supreme Court. Subdivision 9.8 is new. To protect the privacy of minors in suits affecting the parent child relationship (SAPCR), including suits to terminate parental rights, Section 109.002(d) of the Family Code authorizes appellate courts, in their opinions, to identify parties only by fictitious names or by initials. Similarly, Section 56.01(j) of the Family Code prohibits identification of a minor or a minor's family in an appellate opinion related to juvenile court proceedings. But as appellate briefing becomes more widely available through electronic media sources, appellate courts' efforts to protect minors' privacy by disguising their identities in appellate opinions may be defeated if the same children are fully identified in briefs and other court papers available to the public. The rule provides protection from such disclosures. Any fictitious name should not be pejorative or suggest the person's true identity. The rule does not limit an appellate court's authority to disguise parties' identities in appropriate circumstances in other cases. Although appellate courts are authorized to enforce the rule's provisions requiring redaction, parties and amici curiae are responsible for ensuring that briefs and other papers submitted to the court fully comply with the rule.
Comment to 2012 Change: Rule 9 is revised to consolidate all length limits and establish word limits for documents produced on a computer. All documents produced on a computer must comply with the word limits. Page limits are retained for documents that are typewritten or otherwise not produced on a computer.
Comment to 2013 Change: Rule 9 is revised to incorporate rules for electronic filing, in accordance with the Supreme Court's order - Misc. Docket No. 12-9206, amended by Misc. Docket Nos. 13-9092 and 13-9164 - mandating electronic filing in civil cases in appellate courts, effective January 1, 2014. In addition, Rule 9.9 is added to provide privacy protection for all documents, both paper and electronic, filed in civil cases in appellate courts.
Comment to 2023 Change: Rule 9.2(c)(7) is amended to implement section 80.002 of the Government Code. Nothing in Rule 9.2(c)(7) prohibits the clerk from sending orders, notices, and documents to parties by additional methods other than through an electronic filing system approved by the Supreme Court. Indeed, the clerk is strongly encouraged to use additional methods when a party is unrepresented. If a party has not provided an e-mail address and consequently compliance with Rule 9.2(c)(7) is impossible, then the clerk should use an alternative method to send orders, notices, and documents to that party.