NO. 07-01-00193-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
OCTOBER 5, 2001
______________________________IN THE INTEREST OF J.A., A CHILD
FROM THE 286TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOCKLEY COUNTY;
NO. 99-07-17,730; HON. DAVID L. GLEASON, PRESIDING
______________________________
ORDER ON APPELLANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
Before QUINN, REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, appellant, has moved to dismiss its appeal contending that it "has decided not to appeal this cause." Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2) and dismiss the appeal without prejudice. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's personal request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
ial", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; color: black; vertical-align: middle; text-indent: 0in } body { font-family: "Arial", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal }
NO. 07-08-0080-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
AUGUST 5, 2008
______________________________
DANNY RAY BUSCH, JR., APPELLANT
V.
MARVIN MEINKE AND PATTI MEINKE, APPELLEES
_________________________________
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2005-597,542; HONORABLE PAULA LANEHART, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 17, 2008, the parties filed an Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal. By letter of July 18, 2008, this Court requested that the parties amend the motion in order to clarify the relief requested. On July 25, 2008, Danny Ray Busch, Jr., filed Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal in which he represents that he and Appellees, Marvin Meinke and Patti Meinke, have compromised and settled their differences. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). Pursuant to the motion, the parties seek to have this appeal dismissed with the parties bearing their own costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d). We grant the motion.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and costs are taxed against the party incurring them. Having dismissed the appeal at Danny Ray Busch’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice