Archive for September, 2010

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of September 13, 2010

Saturday, September 25th, 2010

For the week of September 13, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued fifteen opinions in civil cases.  Eleven 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:

Dealer Computer Servs., Inc. v. Red Hill Ford, Inc. (05-10-00983-CV) – Recites well-established rule that arbitration proceedings involving commerce are governed by the Federal Arbitration Act.

In re Empire Pipeline Corp. (05-10-01044-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) elements of suit for claim on a note; (3) rule timely performance is a material term of a contract if the contract expressly makes time of the essence or if it is otherwise apparent that the parties intended time to be of the essence; (4) rule that, if time is of the essence, a party must perform in strict compliance with the time prescribed in order to be entitled to any relief; and (5) doctrine of quasi-estoppel.

Smith v. McKinney Housing Auth. (05-08-01466-CV) –Recites well-established (1) rule that a party seeking a continuance bears the burden of demonstrating sufficient cause; (2) rule that, when relying upon absence of counsel as grounds for reversal, a party must demonstrate that his lack of counsel was not the result of his own fault or negligence; and (3) standard for reviewing denial of motion for continuance.

Truestar Petroleum Corp. v. Eagle Oil & Gas Co. (05-09-00041-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for granting mandamus relief; and (2) rule that, unless the parties agree otherwise, that which takes place at mediation proceedings, including demeanor of parties and counsel, is confidential.

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of September 6, 2010

Monday, September 13th, 2010

For the week of September 6, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued seven 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 case is as follows:

In re Cercone (05-10-01076-CV) – Recites well-established rule that appellate court may not resolve disputed fact issues in an original proceeding.

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of August 30, 2010

Thursday, September 9th, 2010

For the week of August 30, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued thirteen opinions in civil cases. Ten 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 three cases are as follows:

In re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. (05-09-01170-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that a trial court abuses its discretion by striking an intervention in the absence of a motion to strike; (2) rule that an order signed during a stay is a legal nullity; (3) definition of “jurisdiction”; (4) definition of “personal jurisdiction”; (5) definition of “subject-matter jurisdiction”; and (6) definition of “comity”.  Additionally, holds that “Texas courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a divorce petition in the context of a same-sex marriage.”

Poly-Trucking, Inc. v. KDT Express, Inc. (05-09-00078-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) standard for reviewing factual sufficiency of evidence; (3) definition of “consequential damages”; and (4) rule that consequential damages are not recoverable unless the parties contemplated at the time they made the contract that such damages would be a probable result of the breach.

U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v.Waldrip (05-09-00078-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) standard for reviewing factual sufficiency of evidence; (3) elements of negligence claim; (4) definition of “physical impairment”; and (5) definition of “disfigurement”.