Brian Kern, O.D., Peter M. Ho, M.D., P.A. d/b/a Texas Vision Associates, P.A., and Ming-Tao Ho, M.D. a/k/a "Peter" M. Ho, M.D. v. The Texas Optometry Board, et al Appeal from 99th District Court of Lubbock County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________ No. 07-14-00049-CV ________________________ BRIAN KERN, O.D., PETER M. HO, M.D., D/B/A TEXAS VISION ASSOCIATES, P.A. AND MING-TAO HO, M.D., A/K/A “PETER” M. HO, M.D., APPELLANTS V. THE TEXAS OPTOMETRY BOARD, ET AL., APPELLEES On Appeal from the 99th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013-508,829; Honorable William C. Sowder, Presiding December 1, 2014 ORDER OF DISMISSAL Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellants, Brian Kern, O.D. and Peter M. Ho, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Texas Vision Associates, P.A., and Ming-Tao Ho, M.D., a/k/a “Peter” M. Ho, M.D., filed Appellants’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of this appeal on November 25, 2014. The motion includes a certificate of conference indicating that counsel for Appellees does not oppose the relief requested. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). The motion does not indicate an agreement of the parties with regard to the allocation of costs of the appeal. We therefore tax costs of the appeal against Appellants. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). Having dismissed the appeal at the request of Appellants, we will not entertain a motion for rehearing, and our mandate will issue forthwith. Patrick A. Pirtle Justice 2

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.