You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Rex Eubank and Bonnie Eubank v. Wendell Estes and Lyn Estes

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-98-00577-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 13, 1999; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Joint motion to dismiss the appeal filed by Rex Eubank and Bonnie Eubank against Wendell Estes and Lyn Estes has been granted by the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin. The appeal was dismissed without further proceedings. The case originated from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Tom Green County, presided over by Judge R. L. Blann, under case number 98C049-L. The dismissal was ordered by a panel consisting of Justices Jones, B. A. Smith, and Yeakel, and the filing date of the dismissal was May 13, 1999. The ruling is marked as "Do Not Publish."

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal of Appeal Without Further Proceedings

Application: The court dismissed the appeal without any additional legal proceedings, indicating a procedural conclusion of the case at the appellate level upon granting the motion to dismiss.

Reasoning: The appeal was dismissed without further proceedings.

Joint Motion to Dismiss an Appeal

Application: The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, granted a joint motion to dismiss the appeal filed by Rex Eubank and Bonnie Eubank. This demonstrates the court's procedural handling of mutual party agreements to terminate appellate proceedings.

Reasoning: Joint motion to dismiss the appeal filed by Rex Eubank and Bonnie Eubank against Wendell Estes and Lyn Estes has been granted by the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin.

Non-Publication of Judicial Rulings

Application: The ruling was classified as 'Do Not Publish,' aligning with certain judicial decisions that are not selected for publication or citation as precedent in future cases.

Reasoning: The ruling is marked as 'Do Not Publish.'