Smith and Marrs, Inc. v. Dk Boyd Land and Cattle, Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Smith and Marrs, Inc. v. Dk Boyd Land and Cattle, Co.

224 S.W.3d 270, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5069, 2005 WL 1536360

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 30, 2005

Docket08-05-00168-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 224 S.W.3d 270 (Smith and Marrs, Inc. v. Dk Boyd Land and Cattle, Co.) 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

Smith and Marrs, Inc. v. Dk Boyd Land and Cattle, Co., 224 S.W.3d 270, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5069, 2005 WL 1536360 (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice.

Pending before the Court is a joint motion to vacate the trial courts judgment and dismiss the suit pursuant to Tex. R.App.P. 42.1(a)(2). The parties have settled all matters in controversy. By their motion, the parties have agreed that the underlying judgment should be vacated and a judgment dismissing the underlying suit should be rendered. Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A), we grant the joint motion, vacate the trial courts judgment dated January 24, 2005, and render a judgment of dismissal with prejudice. The parties motion does not specify that the parties have reached an agreement regarding costs. Accordingly, costs are taxed against Appellant. See Tex.R.App.P. 42.1(d).

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

OPINION

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice.

Pending before the Court is a joint motion to vacate the trial courts judgment and dismiss the suit pursuant to Tex. R.App.P. 42.1(a)(2). The parties have settled all matters in controversy. By their motion, the parties have agreed that the underlying judgment should be vacated and a judgment dismissing the underlying suit should be rendered. Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A), we grant the joint motion, vacate the trial courts judgment dated January 24, 2005, and render a judgment of dismissal with prejudice. The parties motion does not specify that the parties have reached an agreement regarding costs. Accordingly, costs are taxed against Appellant. See Tex.R.App.P. 42.1(d).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 S.W.3d 270, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5069, 2005 WL 1536360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-and-marrs-inc-v-dk-boyd-land-and-cattle-co-texapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack