Alamo Defenders Descendants Association and Lee White, Individually v. Texas Historical Commission; Mark Wolfe, as Executive Director of The Texas Historical Commission, in his Official Capacity only; The Texas General Land Office; George P. Bush, Commissioner of The General Land Office of The State of Texas in his Official Capacity only; Alamo Trust, Inc.; and The City of San Antonio Appeal from 126th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ALAMO DEFENDERS DESCENDANTS ASSOCIATION and LEE WHITE, Individually, Appellants, v. TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION, MARK WOLFE, as Executive Director of the Texas Historical Commission, in his official capacity only, THE TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE, GEORGE P. BUSH, Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas, in his official capacity only, ALAMO TRUST, INC., and the CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Appellees. § § § No. 08-20-00172-CV § Appeal from the § 126th Judicial District Court § Of Travis County, Texas § (TC# D-1-GN-19-007845) § § § § MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Pending before this Court is the parties’ amended joint motion to dismiss this appeal in accordance with a final settlement agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A). The parties 1 This case was transferred to this Court from the Third Court of Appeals, our sister court in Austin (Cause No. 0320-00370-CV) and we decide it in accordance with the precedent of that court. T EX. R. APP. P. 41.3. joining the motion are Appellants, Alamo Defenders Descendants Association and Lee White (collectively, the ADDA, and together with the Appellees, the Parties), and Appellee the Alamo Trust, Inc., (Alamo Trust), Appellee the Texas General Land Office, George P. Bush, Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas, in his official capacity only, (collectively, the GLO), Appellee the City of San Antonio (COSA), and Appellee the Texas Historical Commission, Mark Wolfe, as Executive Director of the Texas Historical Commission (collectively, the THC, and together with Alamo Trust, the GLO, and COSA, the Appellees). The Parties’ motion states they have now executed a final settlement agreement, and in accordance with that agreement, they request the Court dismiss this appeal as to all Parties, vacate the trial court’s judgment, and render judgment effectuating their agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A) (permitting appeals court to dispose of an appeal by rendering judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(e)(permitting the appeals court to vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case). The Parties specifically request that this Court dismiss the case and render judgment as follows: (a) The ADDA’s claim seeking declaratory or injunctive relief to compel DNA testing on human remains previously discovered at the Alamo Complex as their exclusive remedy (the DNA Testing Claim) shall be dismissed without prejudice to refiling of same; and (b) All of the ADDA’s remaining claims or causes of action asserted in the underlying lawsuit are dismissed with prejudice to refiling of same. [Emphasis in original]. Counsel for all Parties have signed the motion filed with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). The motion is granted. The trial court’s judgment signed on April 22, 2020, as to each Appellee, is vacated, and the case is dismissed pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement in that: (a) the ADDA’s DNA Testing Claim shall be dismissed without prejudice to refiling of 2 same; and (b) all of the ADDA’s remaining claims or causes of action asserted in the underlying lawsuit are dismissed with prejudice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), 43.2(e). Based on the parties’ agreement, costs of the appeal are taxed against the party incurring same. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). All other motions are denied as moot. GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice March 11, 2022 Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ. 3
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.
