Thomasv.Acands, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eighth District, El PasoSep 9, 2004
No. 08-04-00027-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 9, 2004)

No. 08-04-00027-CV

September 9, 2004.

Appeal from the 409th District Court of El Paso County, Texas, (Tc# 2000-4142).

Charles S. Seigel, Waters Kraus, LLP, Dallas, TX, for appellants.

Carl H. Green, Mounce, Green, Myers, Safi, Galatzan, El Paso, TX, David S. Jeans, Ray, Valdez, McChristian Jeans, El Paso, TX, Frank G. Harmon, III, Crain Caton James, Houston, TX, Gary D. Elliston, DeHay Elliston, LLP, Dallas, TX, Stephen Rice, Hays McConn Rice Pikering, Houston, TX, Clay M. White, Sammons Parker, Tyler, TX, David Taylor, Thompson, Coe, Cousins, Irons, Dallas, TX, G. Luke Askley, Thompson Knight, Dallas, TX, H. Daniel Spain, Houston, TX, Joe A. Spencer, Jr., El Paso, TX, Jeffrey S. Alley, Scott, Hulse, Marshall, Feuille, Finger Thurmond, P.C., El Paso, TX, Karon Kay Maston, Connelly Baker Wotring Jackson, Houston, TX, Kenneth D. Rhoades, Dunn, Lacal, Adams, Pappas Law, P.C., Houston, TX, Lauren B. Harris, Johnson Spalding Doyle West Trent LLP, Houston, TX, Melvin David Bailey, DeHay Elliston, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Robert Wilinson, Pascagoula, MS, Timothy J. Hogan, Houston, TX, Kay Andrews, Brown, McCarroll, LLP, Austin, TX, Kenneth Morris, Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP, Houston, TX, Lewis Miltenberger, Fort Worth, TX, Peter A. Moir, Dallas, TX, Thomas W. Taylor, Houston, TX, Todd N. Wade, Brown McCarroll Oaks Hartline, Austin, TX, and Todd Ogden, Forman Perry Watkins Krutz Tardy, Houston, TX, for appellees.

Before Panel No. 2, BARAJAS, C.J., McCLURE, and CHEW, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice.

Pending before the Court is the Appellant's motion to dismiss this appeal. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) states:

(a) On Motion or By Agreement. The appellate court may dispose of an appeal as follows:

(1) On Motion of Appellant. In accordance with a motion of appellant, the court may dismiss the appeal or affirm the appealed judgment or order unless disposition would prevent a party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled.

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(1).

Appellants have complied with the requirements of Rule 42.1(a)(1). Appellant represents to the Court that the motion is unopposed. The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant's motion and concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore dismiss the appeal.