From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Botello v. Amoco Prod.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi
Aug 26, 2004
No. 13-99-00659-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 26, 2004)

Opinion

No. 13-99-00659-CV

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed August 26, 2004.

On the Parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss.

Before Chief Justice VALDEZ and Justices HINOJOSA and RODRIGUEZ.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Appellant, Eusebio Botello, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 156th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas in cause number S-96-5539CV-B-4. After the record and briefs were filed and the case submitted to a panel of this Court, appellant and appellees, Amoco Production Company; Champlin Refining, Inc. (n/k/a Union Pacific Refining, Inc.); Champlin Petroleum Company (n/k/a Union Pacific Resources Company); Champlin Refining Chemicals, Inc.; CITGO Refining and Chemicals Company, L.P.; Encycle, Inc.; Encycle/Texas, Inc.; Ensco Drilling Company; General Dynamics Corporation; Green Light Company; Mobil Exploration Production Services, Inc.; Mobil Oil Corporation; Mobil Exploration Production Services, U.S., Inc.; Oxid, Inc. (a/k/a Creekside Industries, Inc. and n/k/a Creekside Capital, Inc.); Reynolds Metals Company; Valero Refining Company; Valero Refining Corporation (f/k/a Corpus Christi Marine Services Company); Central Power Light Company; Coastal Refining Marketing, Inc.; Cox Oil Gas, Inc.; Degussa Corporation; Desoto, Inc.; Fina Oil Chemical Company; Huntsman Petrochemical Corporation; Marathon Oil Company; Union Carbide Corporation (f/k/a Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc.); Chevron Chemical Corporation; Koch Gathering Systems, Inc.; Koch Pipeline Company, L.P.; Koch Refining Company, L.P.; Hoescht Celanese Corporation; and Occidental Chemical Corporation, filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal following settlement pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 42.1(a)(1)(2). In the motion, the parties request that this appeal be dismissed and costs taxed against the party incurring the same.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the parties' joint motion to dismiss this appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See Tex.R.App.P. 42.1. The parties' joint motion to dismiss is granted.

This appeal is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that costs be taxed against the party incurring the same.


Summaries of

Botello v. Amoco Prod.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi
Aug 26, 2004
No. 13-99-00659-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 26, 2004)
Case details for

Botello v. Amoco Prod.

Case Details

Full title:EUSEBIO BOTELLO, Appellant, v. AMOCO PRODUCTION CO., ET AL., Appellees

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi

Date published: Aug 26, 2004

Citations

No. 13-99-00659-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 26, 2004)