Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of April 25, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of April 25, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of April 25, 2011

For the week of April 25, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued eleven 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 five cases are as follows:

Ethicon Endo-Surgery v. Gillies (05-09-00150-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) rule a party requesting a non-suit has an absolute right to the non-suit; (2) rule that a party is restricted on appeal to the theory on which the case was tried; (3) elements of negligent marketing claim; (4) rule that expert testimony is required in strict liability marketing defect claim; (5) rule that expert testimony is necessary to establish standard of care when alleged negligence is not within the experience of laymen; and (6) when allegedly negligent conduct involves use of specialized equipment and techniques, expert testimony must establish both the standard of care and a violation of that standard.  Additionally, holds that expert testimony is required in negligent marketing caes.

Gonzalez v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (05-09-01322-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, without a reporter’s record, appellate court must presume that the evidence supports the trial court’s judgment.

McGehee v. Bowman (05-10-00598-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, if an arbitration agreement is silent or ambiguous about who should decide whether a dispute is subject to arbitration, a court should not presume that the parties intended the issue of arbitrability to be decided by an arbitrator.

Molina v. Jolly Chef Express (05-07-01092-CV) – Recites well-established (1) no-evidence summary judgment standard; (2) rule that liability will attach if the lack of adequate warnings or instructions renders an otherwise adequate product unreasonably dangerous; and (3) rule that there is no duty to warn when risks associated with a product are within the ordinary knowledge common to the community.

Ugwonali v. Agbor (05-10-00527-CV) – Recites well-established rule that an individual who is a party to civil litigation has the right to represent himself at trial and on appeal.

Spread the love

Spread the love