Ritchey v. Vasquez
Tex.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Texas Department of Transportation v. Tanya Simpson Individually, and as a Representative of the Estate of Floyd Simpson and as Next Friend of Jurnee Alexis Simpson, Amber Michele Simpson and Lauren Dior Simpson Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi
- 2025Eric Ellis, as Next Friend to H.D.E., a Minor Child v. Courtney Prince; LVTRise, Inc.; And Above the Clouds, Inc. Tex. App.
- 2025Texas State University and Texas State University System v. Stuart Patrick Wilkinson Tex. App.
- 2025Isiah Montes v. Casitas Lantana Tex. App.
- 2024In Re: Thomas Fuller Mason v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2024City of Olmos Park, Texas v. Brandon J. Grable Tex. App.
- 2022Stedfast Baptist Church v. Fellowship of the Sword, Inc. Tex. App.
- 2021New Penn Financial LLC D/B/A Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing and MTGLQ Investors L.P. v. Beverly Salvagio and James David Salvagio Tex. App.
- 2020Mike Morath, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Education Agency v. Virginia Diane Lewis, Individually and as Next Friend to C.J.L. Tex.
- 2019Fred Cox, Sr v. Allen Samuels Chevrolet and Allen Samuels Tex. App.
Cites 4 cases
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Angel RITCHEY and Haggar Apparel Company, Petitioners, v. Dominga VASQUEZ, Respondent.
Attorneys
- Robert D. Allen, Gregory F. Cox, Dallas, for Petitioners.
- Aaron Pena, Jr., Miguel Salinas, Edinburg, for Respondent.
Respondent sued petitioners, the district court granted summary judgment for petitioners, the court of appeals reversed and remanded, 973 S.W.2d 406, and petitioner appealed to this Court. Respondent has moved to grant the petition for review and dismiss the cause as moot because she no longer wishes to prosecute this litigation. Petitioners agree that the case is now moot but argue that it should be dismissed with prejudice and the court of appeals’ opinion vacated. “[I]t is well established that a dismissal with prejudice functions as a final determination on the merits.” Mossier v. Shields, 818 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Tex.1991) (per curiam). But “[dismissal for mootness is not a ruling on the merits.” Speer v. Presbyterian Children’s Home and Serv. Agency, 847 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Tex.1993). It follows that in dismissing the cause as moot we cannot make the dismissal with prejudice.
Petitioners move us to vacate the court of appeals’ opinion, but we decline to do so, consistent with our usual procedure. Houston Cable TV, Inc. v. Inwood West Civic Ass’n, 860 S.W.2d 72, 73 (Tex.1993).
Accordingly, petitioners’ motion is denied, respondent’s motion is granted in part, the petition for review is granted, the judgments of the court of appeals and of the district court are vacated "without reference to the merits, and the cause is dismissed as moot.