For the week of March 7, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued eight 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 four cases are as follows:
Chambers v. Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety (05-10-01573-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing trial court’s order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence.
Hoss v. Alardin (05-08-01192-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that a party breaches a contract by failing to perform when that party’s performance is due; (2) rule that, if a claimant is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees for some but not all of his claims, he bears the burden of segregating his fees between claims for which they are recoverable and claims for which they are not, but that segregation is not necessary where the claims are inextricably intertwined; (3) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (4) rule that the proper measure of lost- profits damages is lost net profits, not lost gross profits; (5) definition of “net profit”; and (6) definition of “gross profit.”
In re Estate of Jones (05-10-00566-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, absent evidence to the contrary, recitations in a trial court judgment are presumed to be correct.
Millwee-Jackson Joint Venture v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (05-08-01164-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment; (2) statute of limitations for inverse condemnation claim; (3) definition of “regulatory taking”; and (4) elements of a takings claim.