Charlotte Welch, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of L v. Welch v. Pinnacle Technologies, Inc.

NO. 07-08-0161-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A MAY 27, 2008 ______________________________ CHARLOTTE WELCH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF L.V. WELCH, APPELLANT V. PINNACLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., APPELLEE _________________________________ FROM THE 415TH DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY; NO. CV-05-1676; HONORABLE GRAHAM QUISENBERRY, JUDGE _______________________________ Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Charlotte Welch, perfected an appeal from the trial court’s summary judgment. Welch has now filed a motion to dismiss her appeal and has conformed to the requirements of Rule 10.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. This disposition is authorized by Rule 42.1(a)(1) and 43.2(f) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Finding the motion complies with the requirements of Rules 10.1 and 42.1(a), we dismiss the appeal. Further, the court will tax costs against Welch. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d). Having disposed of this appeal at Welch’s request, we will not entertain a motion for rehearing and our mandate shall issue forthwith. Per Curiam . denied, 543 U.S. 820, 125 S. Ct. 69, 160 L. Ed. 2d 29 (2004). An order granting new trial deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal. Boris v. Boris, 642 S.W.2d 855, 856 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 1982, no writ). Accordingly, because there is no final order or judgment in this case, and having given the parties the required ten days notice, we dismiss the appeal on our own motion for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). James T. Campbell Justice