Case ID: f-appx_88/html/0809-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ginger Richardson NOVELLI, Plaintiff—Counter Defendant—Appellant—Cross-Appellee, William L. Richardson, Plaintiff—Cross-Appellee, v. Joseph PASCHALL, etc.; et al., Defendants, Joseph paschall, doing business as Paschall Skipper & Associates, Individually and d/b/a Paschall Skipper & Associates; Paschall Skipper & Associates, Defendants—Appellees, Patrick M. Arnold, Defendant— Counter Plaintiff—Appellee—Cross-Appellant, Watson C. Arnold Jr., Counter Plaintiff—Appellee—Cross-Appellant.
    No. 03-50323.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 8, 2004.
    John J. Fahle, III, Carter & Fahle, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
    Clyde Vance Dunnam, Dunnam & Dunnam, Charles D. Olson, Charles Alfred Mackenzie, Haley & Davis, Waco, TX, Defendants-Appellees/Counter ClaimantsAppellees-Cross-Appellants.
    Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the record, studied the briefs and heard arguments of counsel. We are now thoroughly convinced that the judgment of the district court, granting summary judgment for the defendants and dismissing the complaint, is free of error. Consequently, its judgment is

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.