Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of November 8, 2010

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of November 8, 2010

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of November 8, 2010

For the week of November 8, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued eight 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 six cases are follows:

BDO Seidman, LLP v. J.A. Green Dev. Corp. (05-09-01520-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing whether an arbitration clause imposes a duty to arbitrate; and (2) definition of “unconscionable contract provision.”

Eros v. Boyington Capital Group, LLC (05-08-01703-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) rule that actual notice of receipt is not required when substitute service is used; and (2) rule that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys.

Orthopedic Res., Inc. v. Swindell (05-09-01543-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s decision on motion to dismiss a health care liability claim; and (2) definition of “health care provider.”

Phan v. Le (05-09-01277-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that trial court has inherent power under the common law to dismiss a case when the plaintiff fails to prosecute the case with due diligence; and (2) standard for reviewing dismissal for want of prosecution.

RAS Group, Inc. v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc. (05-08-00828-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; and (2) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment.

Sidley Austin Brown Wood, LLP v. J.A. Green Dev. Corp. (05-10-0008-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing orders denying arbitration under the Texas Arbitration Act; (2) rule that doubts about the scope of an arbitration agreement must be resolved in favor of arbitration; (3) rule that the party seeking to avoid arbitration bears the burden of proving its defenses against enforcing an otherwise valid arbitration agreement; and (4) presumption that a party who signs a contract knows its contents.  Additionally, holds that interlocutory appeals of orders denying arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act are subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review.

Spread the love

Spread the love