Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): addressed in Devlin and City of San Benito applies to shareholders who object to the settlement of a derivative suit in the trial court, deeming them to be parties who may appeal. In City of San Benito, the supreme court explained that an appellant is a deemed party under the doctrine when it meets three requirements: (1) it is bound by the judgment; (2) its privity of estate, title, or interest appears from the record; and (3) there is an identity of interest between the appellant and a party to the judgment. 109 S.W.3d at 755. The supreme court went on to recognize that the most important consideration is whether the appellant is bound by the judgment. Id,.; cf. BASF FINA Petrochem. Ltd. v. H.B. Zachry Co., 168 S.W.3d 867, 870-71 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Here, Lapiner meets all three requirements of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that appellant complied with rule 3as requirement to designate the judgment or order appealed where it was clear from the face of the notice of appeal which judgment appellant sought to appeal (B) holding that appellant waived the issue on appeal by not raising it in its opening brief even though the lower courts decision was based on that point (C) holding that because appellant did not become a party by intervention before judgment was rendered appellant may not extend the time to appeal by filing a motion for new trial (D) holding the nonparty had standing to appeal because it was bound or adversely affected by an injunction (E) holding that appellant had standing to appeal because it was bound by the judgment even though it did not meet the second requirement
Output (English): holding that appellant complied with rule 3as requirement to designate the judgment or order appealed where it was clear from the face of the notice of appeal which judgment appellant sought to appeal