Camden Property Trust, SWP Properties I, L.P., Texas Felcor Lodging I Limited Partnership and Tolako Limited Partnership v. Robert M. Nelson, Hazel O'Neal Carr, David R. Denison, Helen D. Carr, E.J. "Bo" Newton and Putnam Investments, Inc.--Appeal from 160th District Court of Dallas County

Annotate this Case
DISMISSAL FORM FOR CIVIL CASES ON ANT'S MOTION /SETTLEMENT NO. 12-02-00039-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST, SWP

PROPERTIES I, L.P., TEXAS FELCOR

LODGING I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

 
APPEAL FROM THE 160TH

TOLAKO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

WILSON WORLD HOTEL-IRVING, INC.,

APPELLANTS

 

V.

 
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

DALLAS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL

DISTRICT NO. 1, ROBERT M. NELSON,

HAZEL O'NEAL CARR, DAVID R. DENISON,

HELEN D. CARR, E.J. "BO" NEWTON AND

PUTNAM INVESTMENTS, INC.

APPELLEES

 
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PER CURIAM

By opinion delivered on June 20, 2002, this court severed and dismissed all claims of Appellant Wilson World Hotel-Irving, Inc. ("Wilson World") and Dallas County Flood Control District No. 1 ("District") against each other and all claims of Wilson World against all other parties to this appeal. Camden Prop. Trust v. Dallas County Flood Control Dist. No. 1, No. 12-02-00039-CV (Tex. App.- Tyler June 12, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication), 2002 WL 1292992. On August 14, 2002, this court granted a joint motion filed by the remaining Appellants and the Appellees requesting the abatement of this appeal until the earlier of December 20, 2002 or the filing of a motion to dismiss. The parties have now filed an agreed joint motion to dismiss, which has been signed by the attorneys for all parties. The motion represents that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement and no longer wish to proceed with this appeal. Furthermore, the parties have agreed that costs are to be taxed against the party incurring same and that the mandate should issue immediately. Tex. R. App. P. 18.1(c) (mandate to issue earlier than specified in rule if parties agree). Because the parties have met the requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2), the motion is granted, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs are taxed against the parties who incurred them. The mandate shall issue immediately.

 

Opinion delivered December 20, 2002.

Panel consisted of Gohmert, Jr., C.J., Worthen, J., and Griffith, J.

 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)