Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of October 25, 2010

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of October 25, 2010

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of October 25, 2010

For the week of October 25, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued eighteen opinions in civil cases.  Twelve 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 six cases are follows:

Anderton v. Cawley (05-10-00693-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s determination of the amount of security necessary to supersede judgment and (2) definition of “net worth”.

In re Assurances Generales Banque Nationale (05-10-01078-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, under the law of the case doctrine, courts of appeal are ordinarily bound by their prior decisions if there is a subsequent appeal in the case; (2) definition of “mandate”; and (3) rule that, when a trial court fails to follow a court of appeals judgment, mandamus is an appropriate remedy.

In re D.V. (05-10-00413-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that a trial court may terminate the parent-child relationship if the fact-finder finds both that a parent committed one or more enumerated statutory acts and that termination is in the best interest of the child; (2) standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence in a parental termination case; and (3) definition of “endanger”.

In re Sthran (05-10-01176-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for when mandamus relief is available; (2) holding that mandamus relief is largely controlled by equitable principles; and (3) standard for establishing the applicability of laches.

Noyd v. Noyd (05-10-00689-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, absent a timely notice of appeal, the court of appeals does not have jurisdiction over an appeal.

Pick-Up Poker, Inc. v. State (05-09-00562-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, if an appellant does not attack all independent grounds that support a complained-of ruling or judgment, the court of appeals must affirm the ruling or judgment.

Spread the love

Spread the love