Archive for February, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of February 21, 2011

Saturday, February 26th, 2011

For the week of February 21, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued thirteen opinions in civil cases.  Eight 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 five cases are as follows:

All Metals Fabricating, Inc. v. Foster Gen. Contracting, Inc. (05-08-00911-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment; (3) rule that, when multiple grounds are raised in a motion for summary judgment and the trial court does not specify the grounds relied upon for its ruling, the appellate court will affirm the summary judgment if any of the grounds advanced in the motion are meritorious; (4) rule that, when summary judgment evidence discloses facts which render the position of the summary judgment movant untenable, the trial court may consider such evidence regardless of defects in the non-movant’s pleadings; (5) standard for reviewing trial court’s evidentiary rulings; and (6) rule that, in construing a written contract, a court must attempt to harmonize and give effect to all of the provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered meaningless.

Bryant v. Jeter (05-09-01479-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, to complain on appeal about the denial of a motion for continuance, the record must show that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention and either that the trial court denied the motion or that the trial court refused to rule on the motion and the complaining party objected to the refusal; and (2) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment.

Lam v. Nguyen (05-09-00922-CV) – Recites well-established (1) burdens upon both parties when a party seek summary judgment on his own affirmative defense; (2) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; and (3) rule that statute of frauds does not bar a fraud inducement claim in which a plaintiff seeks to obtain only out-of-pocket costs, but does bar a claim for fraudulent inducement claim in which a plaintiff seeks the benefit of the bargain that she would have obtained had the promise been performed.

Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (05-09-01013-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing conclusions of law; (2) standard for reviewing findings of fact; (3) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of the evidence; (4) standard for reviewing factual sufficiency of the evidence; (5) rule that a void deed cannot pass title; (6) a forged deed is void; and (7) rule that a certificate of acknowledgment on a deed is prima facie evidence that the grantor appeared before the notary and executed the deed for the purposes and consideration expressed therein.

Weaver & Tidwell, L.L.P. v. Guarantee Co. of N. Am. USA (05-10-00557-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing order denying motion to compel arbitration in matters subject to the Federal Arbitration Act.

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of February 14, 2011

Saturday, February 19th, 2011

For the week of February 14, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twenty-one opinions in civil cases.  Nineteen 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 two cases are as follows:

In re K.N.K. (05-10-01053-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, unless an interlocutory appeal is specifically authorized by the constitution or a statute, an appellate court has jurisdiction only over appeals taken from final judgments; and (2) holding that, with the exception of an order appointing a receiver, an interlocutory order in a family law case is not appealable.

Stone v. Midland Multifamily Equity REIT (05-09-00856-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) rule that a defect in the substance of an affidavit may be raised for the first time on appeal; (3) rule that a defect in the form of an affidavit must be objected to in the trial court; (4) holding that the failure to obtain a ruling from the trial court on an objection to the form of an affidavit waives the objection; (5) holding that an objection that an affidavit contains hearsay is an objection to the form of the affidavit; and (6) rule that an affidavit must disclose the basis on which the affiant has personal knowledge of the facts asserted.

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of February 7, 2011

Sunday, February 13th, 2011

For the week of February 7, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued seven opinions in civil cases.  Two 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 five cases are as follows:

Jaster v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. (05-08-01441-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that an appellant has the burden to show that the trial court’s judgment was erroneously rendered; and (2) rule that, if possible, an appellate court must interpret the jury findings to support the trial court’s judgment.

Meachum v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (05-08-00318-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that an issue on appeal unsupported by argument or citation to authority presents nothing for the court to review; and (2) rule that, in order to preserve a complaint for appellate review, the complaint must be brought to the trial court’s attention in a timely request, objection, or motion.

Sanders v. American Home Mortgage Servicing (05-09-00980-CV) – Recites well-established (1)  standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; and (2) holding that, in a forcible detainer action, the only issue is which party has the right to immediate possession of the property.

Smith-Gilbard v. Perry (05-09-01020-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing findings of fact; (2) standard for reviewing conclusions of law; (3) definition of “mutual mistake of fact”; (4) rule that, to prove mutual mistake, the evidence must show that both parties were acting under the same misunderstanding of the same material fact; (5) rule that a metes and bounds description of real property prevails over a more general description; and (6) the party alleging agency has the burden of proving it.

Titus Energy, LLC v. AEA, L.P. (05-09-01261-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss.

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of January 31, 2011

Friday, February 4th, 2011

For the week of January 31, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued one opinion in a civil case.  That case is as follows:

Texas Underground, Inc. v. Texas Workforce Comm’n (05-09-00654-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) definition of “subject matter jurisdiction”; and (2) presumption that all claims are within the jurisdiction of a district court unless the Texas Legislature or U.S. Congress has provided that they must be heard elsewhere.