Archive for September, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of September 19, 2011

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

For the week of September 19, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued two opinions in civil cases.   Both 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).

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of September 12, 2011

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

For the week of September 12, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued eight opinions in civil cases.  Five 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:

Adeyemi v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n (05-11-00574-CV) – Recites well-established rule that a case becomes moot if, at any stage during the proceedings, a controversy ceases to exist between the parties.

In re J.C.R. (05-11-00510-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, without a timely notice of appeal, an appellate court has no jurisdiction over the appeal.

State ex rel. A.B. (05-11-00655-CV) – Recites well-established (1) definition of “clear and convincing evidence”; (2) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; and (3) standard for reviewing factual sufficiency of evidence.

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of September 5, 2011

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

For the week of September 5, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued fourteen opinions in civil cases.  Seven 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 seven cases are as follows:

Barnett v. Crockett (05-11-00515-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, if there is no final judgment and no complained-of order subject to interlocutory appeal, appellate court has no jurisdiction over an appeal

Forney 921 Lot Development Partners I, L.P. v. Paul Taylor Homes, Ltd. (05-09-01000-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) standard for no-evidence summary judgment; (2) rule that a party may not file a no-evidence summary judgment as to his own affirmative defense, as at trial he would have the burden to prove that matter; (3) definition of “quasi-estoppel”; (4) elements of fraud claim; and (5) rule that general partners of a limited partnership are jointly and severally liable with each other and with the partnership for partnership debts.

In re H.M.S. (05-09-01456-CV) – Recites well-established rule that disqualification cannot be waived and can be raised at any time.

In re H.M.S. (05-10-00061-CV) (companion case to the case immediately above) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, outside of some specific exceptions, witnesses must be excluded from the courtroom upon the request of a party; (2) rule that the erroneous failure to exclude witnesses from the courtroom is not reversible unless it is shown to be harmful; (3) standard for reviewing an order denying a motion to recuse; and (4) standard for reviewing a trial court’s award of sanctions.

In re M.A.B. (05-11-00653-CV) – Recites well-established rule that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional.

In re Robinson (05-11-01052-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, in order to obtain mandamus relief, a party must show both that the trial court has abused its discretion and that there is no adequate appellate remedy.

Tehuti v. Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP (05-11-00449-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed; and (2) rule that, unless the record affirmatively shows the propriety of appellate jurisdiction, an appellate court must dismiss the appeal.

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of August 29, 2011

Friday, September 2nd, 2011

For the week of August 29, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twenty-five opinions in civil cases.  Fifteen 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 ten cases are as follows:

City of Dallas v. Brooks (05-10-00692-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing ruling on challenge to trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) definition of “ministerial acts.”

Earth Biofuels, Inc. v. Airo Wireless Media, Inc. (05-09-00783-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) elements required for formation of a valid and binding contract; and (3) elements of breach of contract cause of action.

El Dorado Land Co., L.P. v. City of McKinney (05-10-00381-CV) – Recites well-established (1) definition of plea to the jurisdiction; (2) standard for reviewing ruling on whether trial court had subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) definition of “purchase option.”

Holland v. Lovelace (05-09-00993-CV) – Recites well-established (1) elements which must be established to be entitled to a new trial based on jury misconduct; (2) standard for reviewing trial court’s denial of motion for new trial based on jury misconduct; and (3) rule that a defendant bears the burden to plead, prove, and secure findings to support its affirmative defenses.

Hollingsworth v. Springs (05-10-01215-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing trial court’s ruling on adequacy of an expert report required of healthcare liability claim.

In re FC Stone, LLC (05-11-01037-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that an appellate remedy is inadequate when a trial court refuses to enforce a valid forum-selection clause; and (2) rule that a court may decline to enforce a forum-selection clause if the chosen forum is so inconvenient that enforcing the clause would produce an unjust result.

Manley v. Wachovia Small Bus. Capital (05-09-01228-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and (2) elements which must be proved to recover on a promissory note.

Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. LAN/STV (05-09-00946-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that a trial court may disregard a jury finding only if it is not supported by evidence or if the issue is immaterial; (2) rule that a jury question mandated by law cannot be immaterial; (3) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; and (4) rule that a party cannot complain on appeal of an action it induced or allowed.

Nolan v. Hughes (05-10-00481-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment.

Popcap Games, Inc. v. Mumbo Jumbo, LLC (05-10-00301-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) definition of “direct damages”; (3) definition of “consequential damages”; and (4) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed.

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of August 22, 2011

Thursday, September 1st, 2011

For the week of August 22, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued seven opinions in civil cases.  Four 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:

Patlan v. Benitez (05-10-00996-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s denial of motion for new trial; and (2) definition of a “resulting trust.”

Rodriguez v. Mumbo Jumbo, L.L.C. (05-10-00361-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing trial court’s determination that a sanctionable act was committed.

Southwestern Bell Tel., L.P. v. Edwards (05-09-00606-CV) – Recites well-established (1)  standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; and (2) standard for reviewing judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of August 15, 2011

Thursday, September 1st, 2011

For the week of August 15, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twenty-one 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 nine cases are as follows:

Affordable Motor Co., Inc. v. LNA, LLC (05-10-00076-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment.

Austin Commercial Contractors, L.P. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc. (05-10-01542-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate appellate remedy.

City of Combine v. Robinson (05-10-01384-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing whether the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) rule that intentional torts do not fall within the scope of the waiver of immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act.

City of Dallas v. Patrick (05-10-00727-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that a landowner has no duty to warn or protect trespassers from obvious defects or conditions; and (2) standard for reviewing trial court’s ruling on its subject matter jurisdiction.

Defterios v. Dallas Bayou Bend, Ltd. (05-08-01726-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) rule that, to preserve a factual sufficiency complaint for appeal, a party must present the specific complaint to the trial court in a motion for new trial; (3) definition of “consequential damages”; (4) elements of proximate cause; and (5) definition of “cause-in-fact.”

Elite Door & Trim, Inc. v. Tapia (05-10-00635-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing dismissal for want of prosecution; (2) rule that the fair notice pleading standard does not require the pleader to plead evidentiary matters with meticulous particularity; (3) elements of negligence cause of action; and (4) elements of “breach of warranty for services” cause of action.

In re Cornerstone Healthcare Holding Group, Inc. (05-11-00634-CV) – Recites well-established rule that an appellate remedy is inadequate when a trial court improperly refuses to enforce a forum-selection clause.

In re R.M. (05-11-00485-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing order committing a person for inpatient mental health services; and (2) standard for reviewing order to administer psychoactive medication.

Khyber Holdings v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (05-10-01334-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment.