Nathan Ecton v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services--Appeal from 65th District Court of El Paso County

Annotate this Case
COURT OF APPEALS

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

NATHAN ECTON, )

) No. 08-03-00335-CV

Appellant, )

) Appeal from the

v. )

) 65th District Court

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PROTECTIVE )

AND REGULATORY SERVICES, ) of El Paso County, Texas

)

Appellee. ) (TC# 2002CM4353)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellant=s motion to dismiss this appeal because the trial court has granted a motion for new trial. Appellant has filed with this Court a copy of the parties= agreement to an order for new trial for the sole, limited purpose of reforming the judgment to include only those rights pursuant to the Texas Family Code Sections 161.2061(a) and (b). The agreement contains the trial court=s approval and we understand the document to represent the trial court=s intent to grant Appellant=s motion for new trial.

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), states:

(a) On Motion or By Agreement. The appellate court may dispose of an appeal as follows:

(1) On Motion of Appellant. In accordance with a motion of appellant, the court may dismiss the appeal or affirm the appealed judgment or order unless disposition would prevent a party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled.

 

Appellant has complied with the requirements of Rule 42.1(a)(1). The Court has considered this cause on Appellant=s motion and concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. In his prayer for relief, Appellant requests that the appeal be dismissed and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. By our dismissal of this appeal, the trial court will have jurisdiction to hear any further proceedings, therefore the requested relief for remand is unnecessary in this instance. We therefore grant Appellant=s motion and dismiss the appeal.

September 25, 2003

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice

Before Panel No. 3

Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and Chew, JJ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.