Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2003

Architectural Technology, Inc. and David M. Rey v. Oscar Ornelas, Jr. and M. C. Ornelas

Architectural Technology, Inc. and David M. Rey v. Oscar Ornelas, Jr. and M. C. Ornelas
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided May 1, 2003

Architectural Technology, Inc. and David M. Rey v. Oscar Ornelas, Jr. and M. C. Ornelas

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

 

ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.        )

and DAVID M. REY,                                            )             No.  08-03-00106-CV

                                                                              )

Appellants,                         )                 Appeal from the

                                                                              )

v.                                                                           )           County Court at Law #7

                                                                              )

OSCAR ORNELAS, JR. and M.C. ORNELAS,   )          of El Paso County, Texas

                                                                              )

Appellees.                          )                 (TC# 99-2330)

                                                                              )

 

 

MEMORANDUM   OPINION

 

Pending before the Court is Appellants= motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 42.1(a)(1), which 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.

 


Appellants have complied with the requirements of Rule 42.1(a)(1).  Furthermore, Appellees have not objected to the dismissal, but rather they have signified their agreement to the motion by signature of counsel.  The Court has considered this cause on Appellants= motion and concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed.  We therefore dismiss the appeal.

 

 

May 1, 2003

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice

 

Before Panel No. 3

Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and Chew, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.