Southwestern Bell Telephone, L. P. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Rachel Alexander

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 25, 2011
Docket08-10-00049-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Southwestern Bell Telephone, L. P. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Rachel Alexander (Southwestern Bell Telephone, L. P. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Rachel Alexander) 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
Southwestern Bell Telephone, L. P. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Rachel Alexander, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE § COMPANY, L.P. and SOUTHWESTERN No. 08-10-00049-CV BELL COMPANY, § Appeal from the Appellants, § 205th Judicial District Court v. § of El Paso County, Texas § RACHEL ALEXANDER, (TC# 2008-901) § Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion to vacate the trial court’s judgment in this case

and dismiss the appeal as the parties have resolved their disputes. The motion states that the

parties have reached an agreement settling all issues and claims between them. They request an

order: (1) vacating the judgment entered in the court below; (2) releasing the surety from any

further obligation regarding the supersedeas bond; and (3) dismissing the appeal.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a) permits the appellate court to dispose

of an appeal in accordance with an agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys and filed

with the clerk. See TEX .R.APP .P. 42.1(a). Having considered this motion, and as it otherwise

complies with the requirements of Rule 42.1(a)(2), we conclude the motion should be

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In accordance with our authority pursuant to Rule

43.2(e), we will vacate the trial court’s judgment. See TEX .R.APP .P. 43.2(e). Having taken such

affirmative actions, we must deny the parties’ request to dismiss the appeal. In addition, as

specifically requested by the parties in furtherance of their settlement, the corporate surety shall be released from any further obligation or liability related to the supersedeas bond filed in this

case. As the motion indicates, the parties have so agree, each shall bear their own appellate

costs. See TEX .R.APP .P. 42.1(d). This Court’s mandate shall issue without delay.

May 25, 2011 DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

-2-

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Southwestern Bell Telephone, L. P. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Rachel Alexander, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southwestern-bell-telephone-l-p-and-southwestern-b-texapp-2011.