Eduardo A. Trevino v. Cheryl Lawson, Charles E. Monroe, Norris Jackson, Tamra McColluch, Sandra Castenada

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 17, 2013
Docket13-12-00708-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Eduardo A. Trevino v. Cheryl Lawson, Charles E. Monroe, Norris Jackson, Tamra McColluch, Sandra Castenada (Eduardo A. Trevino v. Cheryl Lawson, Charles E. Monroe, Norris Jackson, Tamra McColluch, Sandra Castenada) 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
Eduardo A. Trevino v. Cheryl Lawson, Charles E. Monroe, Norris Jackson, Tamra McColluch, Sandra Castenada, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-12-00708-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

EDUARDO A. TREVINO, Appellant,

v.

CHERYL LAWSON, CHARLES E. MONROE, NORRIS JACKSON, TAMRA MCCOLLUCH, SANDRA CASTENADA, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 343rd District Court of Bee County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Eduardo A. Trevino, filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the

343rd District Court of Bee County, Texas, in cause number B-12-1124-CV-C. Appellant

has filed a motion to withdraw the appeal and requests that this Court withdraw the appeal

without prejudice. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s motion to

withdraw the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellant=s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the

appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant=s request, no motion for

rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. Any pending motions

are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 17th day of January, 2013.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eduardo A. Trevino v. Cheryl Lawson, Charles E. Monroe, Norris Jackson, Tamra McColluch, Sandra Castenada, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eduardo-a-trevino-v-cheryl-lawson-charles-e-monroe-texapp-2013.