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.

Nacho Jimenez v. Soila Gonzalez Martinez

Citation: Not availableDocket: 04-09-00023-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; February 17, 2009; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Nacho Jimenez, the appellant, filed a motion to dismiss his appeal against Soila Gonzalez Martinez, the appellee, in the case originating from the 365th Judicial District Court in Maverick County, Texas. The appellate court, presided over by Justices Karen Angelini, Sandee Bryan Marion, and Phylis J. Speedlin, reviewed the motion, which included a certificate of service indicating that the appellee had not opposed the dismissal. Consequently, the court granted the motion and officially dismissed the appeal, with costs of the appeal assessed against the appellant, in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a) and 42.1(d). The decision was delivered and filed on February 18, 2009.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

Application: The dismissal of the appeal was conducted in compliance with specific provisions of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Reasoning: Consequently, the court granted the motion and officially dismissed the appeal, with costs of the appeal assessed against the appellant, in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a) and 42.1(d).

Assessment of Costs on Dismissal

Application: The costs of the appeal were assessed against the appellant following the voluntary dismissal of the appeal.

Reasoning: Consequently, the court granted the motion and officially dismissed the appeal, with costs of the appeal assessed against the appellant, in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a) and 42.1(d).

Voluntary Dismissal of Appeal

Application: The appellate court granted the appellant's motion to dismiss his appeal after confirming that the appellee did not oppose the dismissal.

Reasoning: The appellate court, presided over by Justices Karen Angelini, Sandee Bryan Marion, and Phylis J. Speedlin, reviewed the motion, which included a certificate of service indicating that the appellee had not opposed the dismissal.