Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of April 18, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of April 18, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of April 18, 2011

For the week of April 18, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twenty-three opinions in civil cases. Ten 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 thirteen cases are as follows:

Effel v. McGarry (05-09-01459-CV) – Recites well-established (1) elements of a binding contract; (2) holding that interest rate is a material term of a contract; and (3) elements of common-law cause of action for account stated.

Farokhnia v. Farokhnia (05-09-01541-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing ruling on motion for new trial; (2) standard for reviewing ruling on motion to reopen evidence; and (3) rule that it is an appellant’s burden to furnish appellate court with a record supporting their allegations of error.

Hunter v. Pricekubecka, PLLC (05-09-01397-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing grant or denial of directed verdict; (2) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (3) elements of breach of contract claim; (4) standard for reviewing motion to modify a judgment; (5) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment; (6) rule that, when trial court does not specify the grounds upon which summary judgment was granted, the appellate court will affirm the summary judgment if any of the grounds advanced in the motion are meritorious; (7) elements of negligent misrepresentation claim; (8) elements of fraud claim; (9) standard for reviewing grant or denial of motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; (10) elements of money had and received claim; (11) definition of “equity”; (12) definition of “conscience”; (13) rule that appellate court does not consider arguments raised for the first time in an appellate reply brief; and (14) rule that, when an issue is established as a matter of law, the trial court should not submit it to the jury.

In re I.T.G.D. (05-10-00723-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed; and (2) rule that docket sheet entries reflecting trial court rulings do not invoke appellate jurisdiction.

In re W.C.B. (05-09-01393-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing trial court’s decision concerning modification of conservatorship of a child.

L’Art de la Mode, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Trade Capital Servs., Inc. (05-10-00742-CV) – Recites well-established elements which must be satisfied for the due process clause of the United States Constitution to permit a state to exert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.

Mendez v. Bill Joplin’s Compressor Servs., Inc. (05-09-01418-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment; and (3) holding that the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy provision is an affirmative defense.

Millwee v. Captar Commercial Real Estate Servs., Ltd. (05-10-00509-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; and (3)  rule that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys.

Murray v. Texas Workforce Comm’n (05-03-00911-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing a Texas Workforce Commission decision regarding payment benefits carries a presumption of validity.

Samuels v. Perry (05-10-01577-CV) – Recites well-established rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed.

Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc. v. McGuire, Craddock, Stother & Hale, P.C. (05-09-00884-CV) – Recites well-established definition of “presentment.”

Williams v. Morales (05-10-00558-CV) – Recites well-established (1) elements of restricted appeal; (2) rule that a trial court has power to dismiss a case when the plaintiff fails to prosecute the case with due diligence; (3) rule that a party must be provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court may dismiss a case for want of prosecution; and (4) standard for reviewing dismissal for want of prosecution.

Wright Group Architects-Planners, P.L.L.C. v. Pierce (05-09-01233-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing factual sufficiency of evidence; (2) standard for reviewing trial court’s conclusions of law; (3) rule that appellate court may not pass upon the credibility of witnesses; (4) rule that the construction of an unambiguous contract is a question of law; (5) rule that agency is not presumed; (6) rule that, when an agent seeks to avoid personal liability on a contract he signs, he must disclose that he is acting in a representative capacity and the identity of his principal; (7) rule that, if a contract clearly shows on its face that it is the obligation of the person who signed it, parol evidence is inadmissible to show that the person intended only to bind his principal; and (8) rule that, when an individual signs a contract without indicating that he is signing in a representative capacity, he is liable on the contract.

Spread the love

Spread the love