Narrative Opinion Summary
Florentino Garza, operating as Tino's Auto Mart, appealed against Ford Motor Company in the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, under case number 04-12-00734-CV. An agreed motion was submitted by both parties requesting the court to vacate the previous judgment and dismiss the case. The court granted the motion, resulting in the following orders: 1. The judgment from November 6, 2013, was vacated. 2. The trial court's Final Judgment from September 26, 2012, was also vacated, and the case was dismissed. 3. All liability associated with the supersedeas bond was discharged. 4. The Bexar County District Clerk was instructed to release the supersedeas bond to the appellant's attorney. 5. Costs from both the trial and the appeal were assigned to the party that incurred them. The order was officially recorded by Justice Sandee Bryan Marion on January 22, 2014.
Legal Issues Addressed
Allocation of Costssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Costs from both the trial and the appeal were assigned to the party that incurred them.
Reasoning: Costs from both the trial and the appeal were assigned to the party that incurred them.
Discharge of Supersedeas Bond Liabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ordered the discharge of all liability associated with the supersedeas bond.
Reasoning: All liability associated with the supersedeas bond was discharged.
Dismissal of Casesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case was dismissed following a joint request by the parties involved.
Reasoning: The trial court's Final Judgment from September 26, 2012, was also vacated, and the case was dismissed.
Release of Supersedeas Bondsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Bexar County District Clerk was directed to release the supersedeas bond to the appellant's attorney.
Reasoning: The Bexar County District Clerk was instructed to release the supersedeas bond to the appellant's attorney.
Vacatur of Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court vacated both the appellate and trial court judgments following an agreed motion by both parties.
Reasoning: The judgment from November 6, 2013, was vacated.