State courts in Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, and Denton counties all rendered large judgments in 2011. Perhaps not surprisingly, due to their smaller dockets, state courts in the outlying counties of the DFW area did not render any judgments over $1,000,000 in 2011.

While federal courts sit in four locations in the DFW area (Dallas, Fort Worth, Plano, and Sherman), of these, only the Dallas federal courts rendered judgments over $1,000,000 in 2011.

At over $74.1 million, Art Midwest, Inc. v. Clapper was by far the largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. The case, out of Judge David Godbey’s federal district court in Dallas, involved a dispute among parties to the sale of eight apartment complexes. The judgment, which followed a jury verdict, has been appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

At over $11.2 million, Resort Development Latin America, Inc. v. Barton was the second-largest DFW-area judgment rendered 2011. It was the largest rendered in state court. The case, out of Judge Tonya Parker’s state district court in Dallas, involved allegations that an officer of a real estate development company left the company to form a competing company. The judgment, which followed a jury verdict, has been appealed to the Dallas Court of Appeals.

At over $10.9 million, Cravens v. Myers was the third-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. It was the second largest rendered in state court and was the largest rendered in Tarrant County. The case, out of Judge Bonnie Sudderth’s state district court in Fort Worth, involved a dispute among partners who were working to develop a surgical hospital. The judgment, which followed a jury verdict, has been appealed to the Fort Worth Court of Appeals.

At over $5.4 million, OurLink, LLC v. Goldberg was the fourth-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. It was the second largest rendered in federal court. The case, in which judgment was rendered by Dallas federal magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan, involved allegations that the owners of a company provided misleading information about the company’s profitability to induce a buyer to purchase the company. The judgment, which followed an arbitration award, was not appealed.

At over $4.6 million, RSS Rail Signal Systems Corp. v. Sky King Foundation, Inc. was the fifth-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. It was the second largest rendered in the state courts of Dallas County. The case, out of Judge Carl Ginsberg’s state district court in Dallas, involved allegations that a company was provided money for the purchase of an airplane but instead used the money for other purposes. The judgment, which followed a jury verdict, has been appealed to the Dallas Court of Appeals.

At over $4.4 million, Abutahoun v. Dow Chemical Co. was the sixth-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. It was the largest in which a personal injury was alleged. The case, out of Judge Jim Jordan’s state district court in Dallas, involved allegations that asbestos-containing products used at a chemical plant caused an individual to suffer from mesothelioma. The judgment, which followed a jury verdict, has been appealed to the Dallas Court of Appeals.

At over $4.1 million, Factory Mutual Insurance Co. v. Alon, USA, LP was the seventh-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. The case, out of Judge David Godbey’s federal district court in Dallas, involved an explosion at a refinery, an insurance company’s payment to its insured for property damage, and the insurance company seeking to recover the amount of that payment from the refinery’s owners. The judgment, which followed a bench trial, has been appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

At over $4 million, Fritts v. McDowell was the eighth-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. The case, out of Judge Martin Lowy’s state district court in Dallas, involved allegations that a company was not fulfilling contractual obligations to liquidate a former employee’s ownership interests. The judgment, which followed a jury verdict, was not appealed.

At exactly $4 million, Knuff v. Gevisser was the ninth-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. The case, out of Judge Martin Lowy’s state district court in Dallas, involved allegations that defamatory statements were posted on websites and were also sent via email. The judgment, which followed a bench trial, has been appealed to the Dallas Court of Appeals.

At over $3.8 million, Nationwide Recovery Systems, Ltd. v. HHT Ltd., LLC was the tenth-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. It was the largest rendered in Collin County. The case, out of Judge Scott Becker’s state district court in McKinney, involved allegations that former employees were violating their confidentiality and non-solicitation agreements. The judgment, which followed a jury verdict, has been appealed to the Dallas Court of Appeals.

At over $3.8 million, Chieftain International (U.S.), Inc. v. Endeavor Oil & Gas, Inc. was the eleventh-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. The case, out of Judge Martin Hoffman’s state district court in Dallas, involved allegations that an owner of an interest in mineral rights did not pay the owner’s share of costs related to work performed on wells. The judgment, which followed a jury verdict, was not appealed.

At over $3.4 million, Monroe Shop Partners, Ltd. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority was the twelfth-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. The case, out of Judge Carlos Cortez’s state district court in Dallas, involved a dispute over the purchase of real estate. The judgment, which followed a jury verdict, has been appealed to the Dallas Court of Appeals.

At over $3 million, Bell v. Freeman was the thirteenth-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. It was the second largest rendered in Tarrant County. The case, out of Judge Dana Womack’s state district court in Fort Worth, involved allegations that a bar had served alcohol to a patron and that the patron’s intoxication-impaired driving caused several deaths. The judgment, which followed a jury verdict, has been challenged by motion in the trial court.

At over $2.4 million, Goodwin v. Quiktrip Corp. was the fourteenth-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. It was the largest rendered in Denton County. The case, out of Judge Doug Robison’s state district court in Denton, involved allegations that a woman was raped and murdered after leaving a convenience store. The judgment, which followed a jury verdict, has been challenged by motion in the trial court.

At over $2.3 million, Worldwide Express Operations, LLC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc. was the fifteenth-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. The case, out of Judge Craig Smith’s state district court in Dallas, involved a dispute between a shipping service provider and a company that had contracted with the provider to resell the provider’s services. The judgment, which followed a jury verdict, has been appealed to the Dallas Court of Appeals.

At over $2.2 million, Courier Solutions, Inc. v. CSA Delivery, Inc. was the sixteenth-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. The case, out of Judge David Godbey’s federal district court in Dallas, involved allegations that an officer of a corporation diverted business opportunities from the corporation to a completing corporation he had formed. The judgment, which followed a jury verdict, has been appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

At over $2.2 million, Barash Energy, Ltd. v. Ropa Exploration Corp. was the seventeenth-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. The case, out of Judge Dana Womack’s state district court in Fort Worth, involved allegations of failure to repay money lent pursuant to a promissory note. The judgment, which followed a jury verdict, has been appealed to the Fort Worth Court of Appeals.

At over $2.2 million, Bravo v. I.J.R., Inc. was the eighteenth-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. The case, out of Judge David Godbey’s federal district court in Dallas, involved allegations that an employee was injured due to the negligence of his co-workers. The judgment, which followed a bench trial, was not appealed.

At over $2.1 million, J.G. Cooper Development, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co. was the nineteenth-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. The case, out of Judge Carl Ginsberg’s state district court in Dallas, involved allegations that a title company authorized disbursement of escrowed funds without authorization. The judgment, which followed the trial court granting a motion for summary judgment, has been appealed to the Dallas Court of Appeals.

At over $1.9 million, Phillips v. BNSF Railway Co. was the twentieth-largest DFW-area judgment rendered in 2011. The case, out of Judge Tom Lowe’s state district court in Fort Worth, involved allegations that an employee was injured due to cumulative trauma incurred during the course of his employment. The judgment, which followed a jury verdict, has been appealed to the Fort Worth Court of Appeals.

Share this post on Facebook

For the week of November 14, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twelve opinions in civil cases.  Six of these dispose of a case without a detailed discussion of the merits (e.g., dismissing a case for want of prosecution, dismissing a case for mootness, dismissing a case pursuant to settlement).  The remaining six cases are as follows:

Bever Props., L.L.C. v. Jerry Huffman Custom Builder, L.L.C. (05-10-00323-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) rule that denial of summary judgment is reviewable when both parties moved for summary judgment and the trial court has granted one motion and denied the other; (3) rule that, when a party moves for summary judgment on multiple grounds and the trial court’s order granting the motion does not specify the grounds relied upon for its ruling, a party appealing that order must negate all possible grounds upon which the order could have been granted; (4) rule that a trial court can render summary judgment only on those grounds that are specifically addressed in a motion for summary judgment; (5) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment; (6) rule that a no-evidence motion for summary judgment that only generally challenges the sufficiency of the nonmovant’s case and fails to identify the specific elements of the nonmovant’s claim or claims that lack supporting evidence is insufficient to support summary judgment; (7) elements of civil conspiracy claim; (8) elements of breach of fiduciary duty claim; and (9) elements of negligent misrepresentation claim.

Hewitt v. Biscaro (05-10-01011-CV) – Recites well-established (1) holding that an objection that an affidavit contains hearsay is an objection to the form of the affidavit; (2) rule that a defect in the form of an affidavit must be objected to in the trial court; (3) rule that the failure to obtain a ruling on an objection to the form of an affidavit waives the objection; (4) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; and (5) rule that, where a party’s performance under a contract is made impracticable by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made, his duty to render that performance is discharged.

In re Pruitt (05-11-01526-CV) – Recites well-established rule that court of appeals does not have mandamus jurisdiction over a justice of the peace.

Kishor v. TXU Energy Retail Co., LLC (05-10-01496-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that appellate court does not have jurisdiction to consider issues raised on appeal by a party who did not file or join in a timely notice of appeal; (2) standard for reviewing a trial court’s evidentiary rulings; (3) rule that an appellate court considers the entire record, including any trial on the merits, in reviewing a trial court’s venue determination; (4) standard for reviewing factual sufficiency of evidence; (5) rule that, if there is a written contract that unambiguously shows on its face that it is the obligation of the person who signed it, the signer may not introduce parol evidence to show that the signer intended to bind only his principal; and (6) rule that the trial judge is the sole arbiter of the credibility of witnesses in a bench trial.

McCoy v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (05-10-01478-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, when a party moves for summary judgment on multiple grounds and the trial court’s order granting the motion does not specify the grounds relied upon for its ruling, a party appealing that order must negate all possible grounds upon which the order could have been granted; and (2) rule that, in any suit against a governmental entity, the plaintiff must plead a valid waiver of immunity.

Riner v. Neumann (05-10-00445-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) definition of “deed of trust”; (3) rule that an alternative pleading cannot be used as a judicial admission; (4) definition of “conclusory statement”; (5) rule that a conclusory statement in an affidavit can neither support nor defeat summary judgment; (6) definition of “the American Rule”; (7) rule that a plaintiff in a trespass-to-try-title suit cannot recover damages; (8) holding that Texas’s only exception to the American Rule is the common-fund doctrine; and (9) holding that trial courts lack the authority to award attorneys’ fees contrary to the American Rule.

Share this post on Facebook

For the week of November 7, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twenty-one opinions in civil cases.  Twelve of these dispose of a case without a detailed discussion of the merits (e.g., dismissing a case for want of prosecution, dismissing a case for mootness, dismissing a case pursuant to settlement).  The remaining nine cases are as follows:

Broadnax v. Texas Mut. Ins. Co. (05-11-0589-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that a plaintiff has the absolute right to a non-suit of its case at the moment the plaintiff file a non-suit motion with the clerk or makes a motion in open court as long as the defendant has not made a claim for affirmative relief; (2) rule that an order granting a non-suit, not the requesting of a nonsuit, triggers appellate deadlines; and (3) rule that, without a timely-filed notice of appeal, an appellate court has no jurisdiction over an appeal.

Bruce v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n (05-10-01402-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, in a forcible detainer action, the only issue to be determined is whether a party seeking is entitled to immediate possession; and (2) rule that a forcible detainer action is in addition to any other remedy that a party may have, such as a question regarding title.

GE Money Bank v. Sharif (05-10-01222-CV) –  Recites well-established rule that an order granting a motion for new trial within the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction is not subject to review either by direct appeal from that order or from a final judgment rendered after further proceedings in the trial court.

Imagine Auto. Group, Inc. v. Boardwalk Motor Cars, LLC (05-11-01119-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s determination of the amount of security necessary to supercede a judgment; and (2) rule that attorneys’ fees are not considered “compensatory damages” in a breach of contract case unless the contract provides for fees as compensation.  Additionally, holds that attorneys’ fees are not considered compensatory damages in a Texas Theft Liability Act case.

In re A.T. (05-10-00363-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing an order granting or denying a bill of review; (2) under an abuse of discretion standard, legal and factual insufficiency are not independent grounds for reversal; and (3) statute of limitations applicable to bills of review.

In re Estate of Hudson (05-11-00008-CV) – Recites well-established rule that the proponent of a will has the burden to establish that the will is valid and has not been revoked.

In re J.D.D. (05-10-01488-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing trial court’s decision to modify child support or conservatorship.

Litoff v. Meadows Serv. Corp. (05-10-01173-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard of review of county court’s dismissal for deficient appeal bond; (2) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed; and (3) rule that a court always has the authority to determine its own subject matter jurisdiction.

Walters v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (05-11-01391-CV) – Recites well-established rule that an oral notice of appeal does not constitute a notice of appeal within the meaning of the rules of appellate procedure.

Share this post on Facebook

For the week of October 31, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued eighteen opinions in civil cases.  Fourteen of these dispose of a case without a detailed discussion of the merits (e.g., dismissing a case for want of prosecution, dismissing a case for mootness, dismissing a case pursuant to settlement).  The remaining four cases are as follows:

Dallas County v. Logan (05-11-00480-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing whether trial court had subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) rule that, under the common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity, the state cannot be sued without its consent.

Milwee-Jackson Joint Venture v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (05-08-01164-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (3) rule that, when both traditional and no-evidence summary motions for summary judgment are at issue, appellate court reviews no-evidence summary judgment first; (4) standard for reviewing whether access to property has been materially and substantially impaired; (5) statute of limitations applicable to inverse condemnation claims; (6) rule that sovereign immunity deprives a trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction for lawsuits in which the State or certain governmental units have been sued unless the State consents to suit; (7) rule that immunity from liability is an affirmative defense; and (8) elements of a “takings claim.”

Payberah v. Payberah (05-10-01098-CV) – Recites well-established (1) definition of the term “waiver”; and (2) rule that a reply brief may not be used to raise new issues on appeal.

Pediatrix Med. Group, Inc. v. Robinson (05-10-01546-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing trial court’s decision with respect to expert reports required for health care liability claims.

Share this post on Facebook