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

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

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

Spread the love

Spread the love