ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Van Peterson Fine Jewelers

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Van Peterson Fine Jewelers. Read the opinion of the Court — 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9809
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 3, 2015·No. 05-15-00646-CV·Published

Opinion

Order entered June 3, 2015

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-00646-CV

ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Appellant

V.

VAN PETERSON FINE JEWELERS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 09-12111

ORDER We DENY the June 2, 2015 unopposed motion of nonresident attorney Charles C. Eblen

for admission pro hac vice without prejudice to filing a motion accompanied by a motion of the

resident practicing Texas attorney with whom he shall be associated, which motion shall contain

a statement that the resident attorney finds the applicant to be a reputable attorney and

recommends that the applicant be granted permission to participate in the particular proceeding

before the Court. See Tex. Rules Govern. Bar Adm’n Rule XIX(b).

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Van Peterson Fine Jewelers, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Van Peterson Fine Jewelers (ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Van Peterson Fine Jewelers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.