Pilgrim's Pride Corporation v. Andres Lopez, Elvia Lopez and Maria Guadalupe Lopez

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-04-00361-CV

Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

Andres Lopez, Elvia Lopez, and

Maria Guadalupe Lopez,

                                                                      Appellees

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # 2001-987-1

MEMORANDUM Opinion

          Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal and requests that costs be taxed against the party incurring same. However, Appellant’s motion does not indicate that the parties have agreed that costs should be taxed in this manner.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).  Therefore, the motion is granted only in part.  The appeal is dismissed, and costs of court are taxed against Appellant.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 23, 2005

[CV06]

12pt">      The correct formulation would ask whether a review of all the evidence, both for and against the finding, demonstrates that the finding of guilt is clearly wrong and unjust. Reversal for a new trial could occur because the finding was based on weak or insufficient evidence or because the proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is offset by contrary proof to the extent that the reasonable-doubt standard is not satisfied.

      One solution would be to recognize the burden of proof at trial in the statement of the review standard: Given that the burden of proof at trial was beyond a reasonable doubt, does a review of all of the evidence, both for and against the finding, demonstrate that the verdict is clearly wrong and unjust? Such a standard would recognize that the quantum of proof is greater in the criminal context.

                                                                                 BILL VANCE

                                                                                 Justice

Opinion delivered and filed December 18, 1996

Do not publish