Charlotte Welch, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of L v. Welch v. Pinnacle Technologies, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 27, 2008
Docket07-08-00161-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Charlotte Welch, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of L v. Welch v. Pinnacle Technologies, Inc. (Charlotte Welch, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of L v. Welch v. Pinnacle Technologies, 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
Charlotte Welch, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of L v. Welch v. Pinnacle Technologies, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

NO. 07-08-0161-CV


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


AT AMARILLO


PANEL A


MAY 27, 2008


______________________________

CHARLOTTE WELCH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF L.V. WELCH, APPELLANT


V.


PINNACLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., APPELLEE

_________________________________


FROM THE 415TH DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY;


NO. CV-05-1676; HONORABLE GRAHAM QUISENBERRY, JUDGE

_______________________________



Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Appellant, Charlotte Welch, perfected an appeal from the trial court’s summary judgment. Welch has now filed a motion to dismiss her appeal and has conformed to the requirements of Rule 10.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. This disposition is authorized by Rule 42.1(a)(1) and 43.2(f) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Finding the motion complies with the requirements of Rules 10.1 and 42.1(a), we dismiss the appeal. Further, the court will tax costs against Welch. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

          Having disposed of this appeal at Welch’s request, we will not entertain a motion for rehearing and our mandate shall issue forthwith.

                                                                Per Curiam

. denied, 543 U.S. 820, 125 S. Ct. 69, 160 L. Ed. 2d 29 (2004). An order granting new trial deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal. Boris v. Boris, 642 S.W.2d 855, 856 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 1982, no writ).

          Accordingly, because there is no final order or judgment in this case, and having given the parties the required ten days notice, we dismiss the appeal on our own motion for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).


                                                                                    James T. Campbell

                                                                                    Justice



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

Related

Boris v. Boris
642 S.W.2d 855 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Charlotte Welch, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of L v. Welch v. Pinnacle Technologies, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charlotte-welch-individually-and-as-representative-texapp-2008.