For the week of February 7, 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:
Jaster v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. (05-08-01441-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that an appellant has the burden to show that the trial court’s judgment was erroneously rendered; and (2) rule that, if possible, an appellate court must interpret the jury findings to support the trial court’s judgment.
Meachum v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (05-08-00318-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that an issue on appeal unsupported by argument or citation to authority presents nothing for the court to review; and (2) rule that, in order to preserve a complaint for appellate review, the complaint must be brought to the trial court’s attention in a timely request, objection, or motion.
Sanders v. American Home Mortgage Servicing (05-09-00980-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; and (2) holding that, in a forcible detainer action, the only issue is which party has the right to immediate possession of the property.
Smith-Gilbard v. Perry (05-09-01020-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing findings of fact; (2) standard for reviewing conclusions of law; (3) definition of “mutual mistake of fact”; (4) rule that, to prove mutual mistake, the evidence must show that both parties were acting under the same misunderstanding of the same material fact; (5) rule that a metes and bounds description of real property prevails over a more general description; and (6) the party alleging agency has the burden of proving it.
Titus Energy, LLC v. AEA, L.P. (05-09-01261-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss.