Jester Venture, Ltd., Jester Venture I, Inc., Gregory Baxter and GMB Development, Inc. v. Robert Nash and Marshall McAlpine

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 17, 2006
Docket01-06-00512-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Jester Venture, Ltd., Jester Venture I, Inc., Gregory Baxter and GMB Development, Inc. v. Robert Nash and Marshall McAlpine (Jester Venture, Ltd., Jester Venture I, Inc., Gregory Baxter and GMB Development, Inc. v. Robert Nash and Marshall McAlpine) 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
Jester Venture, Ltd., Jester Venture I, Inc., Gregory Baxter and GMB Development, Inc. v. Robert Nash and Marshall McAlpine, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Opinion issued July 17, 2006



In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________


NO. 01-06-00512-CV


JESTER VENTURE, LTD., JESTER VENTURE I, INC., GREGORY BAXTER, AND GMB DEVELOPMENT, INC., Appellants


V.


ROBERT NASH, LIND LACKNER WHEELER, AND HOWARD W. MAYS, Appellees





On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2001-20947





MEMORANDUM OPINION

          The Court today considered the parties’ agreed motion to vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case with prejudice. The motion is granted as follows:

          (1)     Without regard to the merits, the trial court’s judgment is vacated and the case is dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(e); see Markowitz v. St. Joseph Regional Health Center, No. 01–03–00398–CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 6344 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 15, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) (vacating the trial court’s judgment and dismissing the case based on the parties joint motion to vacate and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(e)); Internet America, Inc. v. Carradine, 106 S.W.3d 906, 907 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (vacating the trial court’s judgment and dismissing the case based upon the joint agreed motion for disposition pursuant to settlement agreement and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(e)); Young Materials Corp. v. Smith, 4 S.W.3d 84 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.) (vacating the trial court’s judgment and dismissing the case based upon the parties’ agreed motion to dismiss the entire cause and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(e));

          (2)     All other pending motions are overruled as moot.

          (3)     Appellant shall pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).


                                                   PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Taft and Nuchia.

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

Related

Young Materials Corp. v. Ronnie Smith
4 S.W.3d 84 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Internet America, Inc. v. Carradine
106 S.W.3d 906 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jester Venture, Ltd., Jester Venture I, Inc., Gregory Baxter and GMB Development, Inc. v. Robert Nash and Marshall McAlpine, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jester-venture-ltd-jester-venture-i-inc-gregory-ba-texapp-2006.