Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of April 11, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of April 11, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of April 11, 2011

For the week of April 11, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued fifteen opinions in civil cases. Six 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 nine cases are as follows:

Amir-Sharif v. Quick Trip Corp. (05-09-01497-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing a trial court’s finding that a litigant is vexatious.

Benser v. Waterfall Crossing Condo. Ass’n, Inc. (05-10-00255-CV) – Recites well-established rule that claims may not be asserted for the first time on appeal.

Dontos v. Bruno (05-10-00178-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that the existence of personal jurisdiction is a question of law; (2) rule that, when a nonresident defendant challenges jurisdiction through a special appearance, the defendant must negate all grounds for personal jurisdiction alleged by the plaintiff in order to prevail; (3) what must be shown to establish “purposeful availment”; (4) what must be shown to establish “general jurisdiction”; and (5) what must be shown to establish “specific jurisdiction.”

In re M.A.M. (05-09-00396-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s decision concerning modification of conservatorship of a child; (2) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; and (3) rule that unchallenged findings of fact are binding on an appellate court unless the contrary is established as a matter of law or there is no evidence to support the finding.

In re Maasoumi (05-10-00448-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate appellate remedy; and (2) rule that a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts.

In re R.M.H. (05-10-00073-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, if a party fails to brief a complaint adequately, he waives that complaint on appeal.

Park N. Serv. Ctr., L.P. v. Applied Circuit Tech., Inc. (05-10-00042-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s decision to submit a jury question; (2) rule that a trial court is required to submit to the jury a properly requested question that is raised by the pleadings and evidence and is necessary to enable the jury to render a verdict; and (3) rule that error in a jury charge is harmful only if it probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment.

Preferred Commc’n Sys., Inc. v. Berberena (05-10-01489-CV) – Recites well-established rule that a corporation may only appear in legal proceedings through an attorney.

R.H. v. Smith (05-09-00564-CV) – Recites well-established (1) holding that a case is “tried” when the trial court’s judgment is based on an evidentiary hearing containing conflicting testimony; (2) standard for reviewing trial court’s ruling on motion to show authority; (3) rule that a trial court has the responsibility to replace a minor’s next friend if the court believes that the next friend has an interest adverse to the minor; and (4) standard for reviewing trial court’s judgment on mediated settlement.

Spread the love

Spread the love