Doris Steubing v. William Paul Gips, Lucille Fay Gips and Conoco Phillips Company Appeal from 267th District Court of De Witt County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-16-00108-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG KENNETH HAHN & DORIS STEUBING, APPELLANTS, v. WILLIAM PAUL GIPS, LUCILLE FAY GIPS, AND CONOCO PHILLIPS COMPANY, APPELLEES. On appeal from the 267th District Court of DeWitt County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Doris Steubing, has filed a voluntary motion to dismiss her appeal. Appellant Kenneth Hahn is unopposed to her motion, as is appellee Conoco Phillips Company. The record does not indicate whether or not appellees William Paul Gips or Lucille Fay Gips opposes Steubing’s motion to dismiss. Steubing asserts that a partial dismissal of her appeal will not prejudice Hahn’s appeal or otherwise prevent any party from seeking relief to which that party would be entitled. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1 allows this Court to dismiss an appeal unless disposition would prevent a party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). In addition, Rule 42.1 expressly allows for a severance on appeal to dispose of a severable portion of the proceeding if a severance will not prejudice the remaining parties. See id. R. 42.1(b). Thus, the Court, having considered the documents on file and Steubing’s motion to dismiss her appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See id. R. 42.1(a). Appellant Hahn’s appeal is ordered SEVERED and will be docketed in this Court under cause number 13-1600336-CV, and will proceed in due course. We GRANT Steubing’s motion to dismiss her appeal and we DISMISS her appeal. Costs are taxed against Steubing. See id. R. 42.1(d) (“Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.”). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 30th day of June, 2016. 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.