Body Dynamics, Inc. D/B/A BDI Marketing, Inc. v. Nittany Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 19, 2006
Docket06-06-00050-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Body Dynamics, Inc. D/B/A BDI Marketing, Inc. v. Nittany Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Body Dynamics, Inc. D/B/A BDI Marketing, Inc. v. Nittany Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) 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.

Bluebook
Body Dynamics, Inc. D/B/A BDI Marketing, Inc. v. Nittany Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion



In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana


______________________________


No. 06-06-00050-CV



BODY DYNAMICS, INC., D/B/A

BDI MARKETING, INC., Appellant

V.

NITTANY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appellee




On Appeal from the 5th Judicial District Court

Cass County, Texas

Trial Court No. 04-C-159-A





Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter



MEMORANDUM OPINION


            Body Dynamics, Inc., d/b/a BDI Marketing, Inc., the sole appellant in this case, has filed a motion seeking to dismiss its appeal, representing to this Court that the parties have reached a full and final settlement. In such a case, no real controversy exists, and in the absence of a controversy, the appeal is moot.

            We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.


                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice


Date Submitted:          September 18, 2006

Date Decided:             September 19, 2006



ability and magnitude of the potential harm to others; and (2) the actor must have actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeds with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Ellender, 968 S.W.2d 917, 921 (Tex. 1998). Neither of the fact patterns alleged by Horton constituted gross negligence. Again, if Froelich ordered the actions, Horton may have had a claim for assault or conversion, but not gross negligence. And, if Froelich was merely aware of the actions between the inmates, there was certainly no claim for gross negligence. Under either scenario alleged in Horton's petition, there was no basis in law for his claims of negligence or gross negligence. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Horton's petition.

We affirm the judgment.



Donald R. Ross



Date Submitted: August 26, 2002

Date Decided: August 27, 2002



Do Not Publish

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

Related

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Ellender
968 S.W.2d 917 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Body Dynamics, Inc. D/B/A BDI Marketing, Inc. v. Nittany Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/body-dynamics-inc-dba-bdi-marketing-inc-v-nittany--texapp-2006.