Fidencio Flores, Jr. v. Melden and Hunt

Court of Appeals of Texas

Fidencio Flores, Jr. v. Melden and Hunt

DecidedMarch 24, 2011

Docket13-10-00276-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Fidencio Flores, Jr. v. Melden and Hunt (Fidencio Flores, Jr. v. Melden and Hunt) 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

Fidencio Flores, Jr. v. Melden and Hunt, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-10-00276-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

FIDENCIO FLORES, JR., APPELLANT,

v.

MELDEN AND HUNT, APPELLEE.

On Appeal from the 92nd District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Vela, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Fidencio Flores, Jr., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-596-09-A. On February 14, 2011, the appeal was abated to allow the parties an opportunity to enter into a settlement agreement. This appeal is hereby REINSTATED.

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that he believes the parties have reached an agreement to settle and compromise their differences. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). Appellant=s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. 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.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

24th day of March, 2011.

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

NUMBER 13-10-00276-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

FIDENCIO FLORES, JR., APPELLANT,

v.

MELDEN AND HUNT, APPELLEE.

On Appeal from the 92nd District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Vela, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Fidencio Flores, Jr., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-596-09-A. On February 14, 2011, the appeal was abated to allow the parties an opportunity to enter into a settlement agreement. This appeal is hereby REINSTATED.

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that he believes the parties have reached an agreement to settle and compromise their differences. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). Appellant=s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. 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.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

24th day of March, 2011.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Fidencio Flores, Jr. v. Melden and Hunt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fidencio-flores-jr-v-melden-and-hunt-texapp-2011.