in Re: William Peters

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 26, 2006
Docket12-05-00331-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re: William Peters (in Re: William Peters) 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
in Re: William Peters, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

DISMISSAL FORM FOR CIVIL CASES ON ANT'S MOTION /SETTLEMENT

                NO. 12-05-00331-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§         

IN RE: WILLIAM PETERS §          ORIGINAL PROCEEDING


MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Relator William Peters has filed a motion to dismiss this original proceeding, and all other parties to the proceeding have been given notice of the filing of this motion.  In his motion, Peters represents that the matter has been fully and finally resolved.  Because Peters has met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), the motion is granted, and the proceeding is dismissed. 

Opinion delivered May 26, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(PUBLISH)



[1] 

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 26, 2006

IN RE: WILLIAM PETERS


  Original Proceeding from the 392nd Judicial District Court

  of Henderson County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 2005-B-093)


                                    THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the Relator’s motion to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus, and the Court having heard and fully considered said motion is of the opinion the same should be Granted.

                                    It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that this petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, Hereby Dismissed  and that all costs of this appeal be, and the same are, adjudged against the Relator, William Peters for which execution may issue, and that this decision be certified to the trial court below for observance.

                                    By per curiam opinion.

                                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.


 [1]J.17        DISMISSED  -  With Prejudice on Appellant's Motion

            Appellant pays costs of appeal.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re: William Peters, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-william-peters-texapp-2006.