Ve Corp. v. Ernst Young

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ve Corp. v. Ernst Young

860 S.W.2d 116, 1993 Tex. App. LEXIS 2095, 1993 WL 282726

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 3, 1993

DocketNo. 2-92-108-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 860 S.W.2d 116 (Ve Corp. v. Ernst Young) 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

Ve Corp. v. Ernst Young, 860 S.W.2d 116, 1993 Tex. App. LEXIS 2095, 1993 WL 282726 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON DISMISSAL OF APPEAL

ASHWORTH, Justice (Retired, Sitting by Assignment).

On this day came on to be considered by the Court the motion of appellee, Ernst & Young, to dismiss appeal. The Court finds that prior to the submission of this cause on December 2, 1992, the appellant, on December 1, 1992, filed an identical suit in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, San Jose, California. Such filing rendered moot the cause before us. Such filing was not made known to this Court at time of submission. It is therefore this Court’s opinion that appellee’s motion to dismiss should be granted.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that our opinion and judgment of January 26, 1998 is withdrawn and this appeal is dismissed.

Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

It is further ordered that appellant, VE Corp., pay all costs of this appeal, and that said costs be paid from the cash deposit made with the clerk of the trial court, for which let execution issue, and that this decision be certified below for observance.

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

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON DISMISSAL OF APPEAL

ASHWORTH, Justice (Retired, Sitting by Assignment).

On this day came on to be considered by the Court the motion of appellee, Ernst & Young, to dismiss appeal. The Court finds that prior to the submission of this cause on December 2, 1992, the appellant, on December 1, 1992, filed an identical suit in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, San Jose, California. Such filing rendered moot the cause before us. Such filing was not made known to this Court at time of submission. It is therefore this Court’s opinion that appellee’s motion to dismiss should be granted.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that our opinion and judgment of January 26, 1998 is withdrawn and this appeal is dismissed.

Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

It is further ordered that appellant, VE Corp., pay all costs of this appeal, and that said costs be paid from the cash deposit made with the clerk of the trial court, for which let execution issue, and that this decision be certified below for observance.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

860 S.W.2d 116, 1993 Tex. App. LEXIS 2095, 1993 WL 282726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ve-corp-v-ernst-young-texapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack