Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of May 16, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of May 16, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of May 16, 2011

For the week of May 16, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued fourteen opinions in civil cases.  Seven 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 seven cases are as follows:

Burgess v. 84 Fin. L.P. (05-11-00272-CV) – Recites well-established (1) holding that jurisdiction over appeals is established exclusively by constitutional and statutory enactments; and (2) rule that, absent a timely-filed notice of appeal from a final judgment or authorized interlocutory order, appellate court does not have jurisdiction over appeal.

Ex parte City of Irving (05-11-00036-CV) – Recites well-established standards for reviewing matters of statutory construction.

GPA Holding v. Baylor Health Care Sys. (05-09-00586-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) rule that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law; (3) definition of “liquidated damages”; (4) rule that whether a contract term is a liquidated damages clause is a question of law; and (5) rule that a party asserting that a liquidated damages clause is an unenforceable penalty bears the burden of proof.

Jon Scott Salon, Inc. v. Garcia (05-10-00931-CV) – Recites well-established (1) holding that the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the case can be tried on the merits; and (2) standard for reviewing a temporary injunction order.

Lieberman v. Romero (05-08-01636-CV) – Recites well-established rule that a suit may not be brought against a governmental employee in his individual capacity for actions taken within the scope of his employment.

Odems v. Williams (05-11-00384-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, when a party files a timely post-judgment motion, that party is not permitted to bring a restricted appeal.

Yarbrough v. American Contractors Ins. Group (05-10-00562-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing ruling on whether court has subject-matter jurisdiction.

Spread the love

Spread the love