Court Opinion

ID: 2893130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-07 22:37:29.777124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:14.750345
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-06-0251-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

NOVEMBER 21, 2006

______________________________

THE CITY OF LEVELLAND,

Appellant

V.

BILL AND NANCY CARR,

Appellees

_________________________________

FROM THE 286
th
 DISTRICT COURT OF HOCKLEY COUNTY;

NO. 05-09-20167; HON. HAROLD PHELAN, PRESIDING

_______________________________

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

       
_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

The City of Levelland moves to dismiss its interlocutory appeal.  Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and dismiss the appeal.  Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiamut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer
, 124 S.W.3d 154, 157 (Tex. 2003) (stating this to be the test when determining whether a writing is ambiguous).  Moreover, the question being one of law
, we were entitled to consider it 
de novo
.  
Cherokee Water Co. v. Freeman, 
33 S.W.3d 349, 353 (Tex. App.– Texarkana 2000, no pet.).  Thus, neither the trial court’s fact findings about the legal meaning and effect of the June 7
th
 letter nor the rules used to assess the validity of those fact findings bound our decision.

Accordingly, appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

Per Curiam