Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl- Thomas Musselman
This text of Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl- Thomas Musselman (Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl- Thomas Musselman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Order entered March 21, 2013
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00191-CV
BALTASAR D. CRUZ, Appellant
V.
JAMES VAN SICKLE, KARL- THOMAS MUSSELMAN, ET AL, Appellee
On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-09275
ORDER Based on the filings before us and civil practice and remedies code section 27.008, we
DENY appellees Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine
Haenschen’s “motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to abate, for lack of jurisdiction.” See TEX.
CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.008(b), (c) (West Supp. 2012).
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl- Thomas Musselman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baltasar-d-cruz-v-james-van-sickle-karl-thomas-mus-texapp-2013.