Archive for October, 2010

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of October 18, 2010

Friday, October 22nd, 2010

For the week of October 18, 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 follows:

Greenstein v. Baggett (05-09-00640-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys; (2) rule that a pleading that asks the court to dismiss a suit for failing to state a cause of action is improper; (3) rule that the proper way for a defendant to urge that a plaintiff has failed to plead a cause of action is by special exception; (4) rule that a defendant who chooses to seek dismissal by filing a motion to dismiss based on affirmative defenses must first file special exceptions; and (5) rule that, if a trial court sustains a special exception, the pleader must be given an opportunity to replead.

In re Hudson (05-10-01300-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, if an order in a probate case disposes of all of the claims and parties in a particular phase of the proceedings, it is an appealable order.

Mesquite Elks Lodge #2404 v. Shaikh (05-08-01372-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing findings of fact and conclusions of law for legal and factual sufficiency; and (2) rule that, when an injury to realty is reparable, the measure of damages is the reasonable cost of repairs necessary to restore the property to its prior condition. 

Minkoff v. Hicks (05-10-00606-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that a modification of a contract must satisfy the elements of a contract; (2) definition of “meeting of the minds; (3) elements of a valid offer; (4) rule that an acceptance must be identical to the offer or there is no binding contract; and (5) rule that waiver is a valid defense to arbitration.

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of October 11, 2010

Sunday, October 17th, 2010

For the week of October 11, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued nine 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 three cases are follows:

In re B.A.T. (05-10-00593-CV) – Recites well-established rule that timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional.

In re Bolton (05-10-01115-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, if a judge is subject to disqualification, any orders rendered by that judge are void; (2) rule that, if a judge is subject to recusal, orders rendered by that judge are not void but rather voidable; (3) rule that recusal of a judge can be waived; and (4) rule that, if a judge acts without statutory or procedural authority, the judge’s actions are not void but rather voidable and any such error can be waived.

City of Wilmer v. Northwind Props., Ltd. (05-10-00309-CV) – Recites well-established rule that parties may not use an appeal of a temporary injunction ruling to get an advance ruling on the merits.

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of October 4, 2010

Sunday, October 17th, 2010

For the week of October 4, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twelve 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 case is as follows:

In re Poloza (05-10-01167-CV)

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of September 27, 2010

Sunday, October 3rd, 2010

For the week of September 27, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued thirty opinions in civil cases.  Twenty-nine 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:

Supulveda v. Medrano (05-10-00915-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to enter writ of injunction in an election case; (2) rule that the appeal of an election contest becomes moot when absentee balloting has begun during the pendency of the appeal; and (3) rule that a court of appeals may, on affidavit or otherwise, ascertain matters of fact that are necessary to the exercise of its jurisdiction.

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of September 20, 2010

Friday, October 1st, 2010

For the week of September 20, 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:

In re D.J.L. (05-10-00203-CV) – Recites well-established standard for determining whether a party is entitled to a restricted appeal.

In re Energy Solutions, L.P. (05-10-01158-CV) – Recites well-established rule that mandamus is not available for erroneous denial of motion to recuse.

In re Frost National Bank, N.A. (05-10-01097-CV) – Recites well-established rule that there is no adequate remedy at law when a trial court fails to enforce a valid jury waiver.

P&A Real Estate, Inc. v. American Bank of Tex. – (05-10-00538-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, when a party files a timely post-judgment motion, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction over a restricted appeal; (2) rule that motion for new trial is effective even though it was filed under the wrong cause number; (3) rule that, if there is no suggestion of confusion, notice of appeal is effective even though it was filed under the wrong cause number; and (4) rule that, without a timely filed notice of appeal, court of appeals lacks jurisdiction.