                                     NUMBER 13-99-556-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                      THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

                IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE
            OF CLYNE EDWARD MEINEN, DECEASED
___________________________________________________________

            On appeal from County Court at Law No. 2
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
_____________________________________________________________

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

         Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza 1
                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

        Appellant, Lee Meinen, and appellee, Jean Corbin, the administrator/executrix of

the Estate of Clyne Edward Meinen, have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal. See




        1
         This appeal was originally subm itted to a panel consisting of Justice Federico G. Hinojosa, whose
term of office expired on Decem ber 31, 2006, Justice Nelda V. Rodriguez, and Senior Justice John Hill,
assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Suprem e Court of Texas. See T EX . G O V 'T C OD E A N N . §
74.003 (Vernon 2005). The m atter is now being subm itted to the current panel in accordance with the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 41.1(a),(c).
TEX . R. APP. P. 42.1(a). According to the motion, the parties “have fully and finally

compromised and settled” all matters in controversy between them.

       This Court previously issued an opinion and judgment in this cause on March 1,

2001. The appeal remained pending in this Court, however, based on motions for

rehearing and a motion to stay all proceedings on appeal pending settlement.

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the joint

motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, we

withdraw the opinion and judgment of March 1, 2001, and substitute this opinion and

judgment in their place. See id. 42.1(c).

       The joint motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED. See id.

42.1(a)(1), 43.2(e). All other pending motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT. Costs are

assessed against appellant. Id. 42.1(d).

                                                              PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the 6th day of March, 2008.




                                            2
