For the week of May 23, 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:
Darocy v. Abildtrup (05-10-00369-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) rule that the fact finder is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony; and (3) elements of aider-and-abettor liability claim.
In re Lavizadeh (05-11-00511-CV) – Recites well-established standard for obtaining mandamus relief.
Flores v. Appler (05-09-01523-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that it is proper to include traditional and no-evidence grounds in a single motion for summary judgment; (2) rule that, when a trial court does not state the basis for granting summary judgment, the appellant must negate all grounds; and (3) rule that a no-evidence motion for summary judgment must state the element or elements as to which there is no evidence.
Goodenberger v. Ellis (05-10-00405-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, to present an issue to an appellate court, a party’s brief must contain citation to legal authorities and to the appellate record; (2) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment; (3) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (4) definition of “easement”; (5) elements of easement by estoppel claim; (6) rule that an easement by estoppel may not be imposed against a subsequent purchaser for value who has no notice, actual or constructive, or the easement claimed; and (7) elements of implied easement claim.
Leighton v. Rebeles (05-10-00990-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that a court of appeals may review the portion of an order that is appealable and refuse to consider the portion which is non-appealable; (2) holding that the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter of the suit pending a final decision on the rights of the parties; (3) standard for reviewing a trial court’s grant or denial of a temporary injunction; and (4) rule that all orders that grant a temporary injunction are required to include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits.