City of Midlothian v. Hilco Electric Cooperative, Inc. ( 2000 )

City of Midlothian, et al v. Hilco Electric Cooperative, Inc.

  IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-00-097-CV

     CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN,

                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     HILCO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.,

                                                                              Appellee

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court # 57178

                                                                                                               Â

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                                                                                               Â

      The City of Midlothian, Appellant, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. In relevant portion, Rule 42.1(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

(a) The appellate court may dispose of an appeal as follows:

(2) in accordance with a motion of appellant to dismiss the appeal or affirm the appealed judgment or order; but no other party may be prevented from seeking any relief to which it would otherwise be entitled.

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2).

      Midlothian states that it has decided not to appeal the trial court’s judgment and has elected to voluntarily dismiss its appeal. Hilco has not filed a response to the motion. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed with costs to be taxed against Midlothian.

                                                                   PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Gray

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 31, 2000

Do not publish

ndent:.5in;line-height:200%'>We conditionally grant Mitchell’s petition for writ of mandamus.  The writ will issue only upon certification to this court that Respondent has failed to rule upon Mitchell’s motion for default judgment within 21 days after the date of this opinion.

 

 

 

                                                                                    BILL VANCE

                                                                                    Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

            Justice Vance, and

            Justice Reyna

Petition granted and writ conditionally issued

Opinion delivered and filed January 23, 2008

[OT06]

---

[1]               We acknowledge the burden of pro se inmate litigation, but as long as a suit satisfies Chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, our judicial system must function for such litigation as it does for any other.  In addition to providing litigants with their “day in court,” such functioning will render unnecessary original proceedings such as this one.