shares if the settlement is approved. Thus, I see no constitutional reason why timing of share purchase should matter in determining standing to object to a settlement. 7 . The Fifth Circuit applies a related but distinct doctrine for determining when nonparties may appeal, asking whether the nonparties actually participated in the proceedings below, the equities weigh in favor of hearing the appeal, and the nonparties have a personal stake in the outcome. E.g., Castillo v. Cameron County, Tex., 238 F.3d 339, 349-50 (5th Cir.2001). 8 . Because I conclude Lapiner meets these requirements, I need not address whether he may also appeal because he has no other legal remedy to contest the trial court’s denial of his request for attorneys’ fees and objection. See BASF, 168 S.W.3d at 870-71 (<HOLDING>). 9 . 15A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge holding that a party failed to preserve error by not pursuing a ruling at trial where the courts motion in limine ruling invited the party to attempt to admit the evidence during trial holding that third party seeking to be reimbursed for costs incurred in responding to discovery request had standing to appeal because its interests were directly represented by its own counsel in the trial court it was effectively bound by the trial courts final order of dismissal the other party would have had the right to appeal the trial courts ruling if it had granted the request for reimbursement and the third party had no other legal remedy to contest the trial courts denial of its request holding that it is error for court of appeals to reverse trial courts ruling that had not been objected to at the trial court level holding that a party had failed to preserve an argument for appellate review when that party had failed to argue the issue to the trial court either at trial or in his postjudgment motion