Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of May 2, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of May 2, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of May 2, 2011

For the week of May 2, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued thirteen opinions in civil cases. Five 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 eight cases are as follows:

Badhiwala v. Favors (05-10-00211-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing trial court’s order on motion to dismiss health care liability claim.

Bank of Am. v. Babu (05-09-00726-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s conclusions of law; (2) standard for reviewing trial court’s decisions on equitable relief; (3) rule that a party has constructive notice of instruments properly recorded in the proper county; (4) definition of “equitable subrogation”; and (5) rule that existence of duty is a question of law for the court to decide from facts surrounding the occurrence in question.

Collins v. Collins (05-09-00726-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that assets belonging to a third party are not part of the marital estate; and (2) rule that, when reversible error is committed in the division of property upon divorce, a court of appeals is not permitted to render a different division or to remand only certain portions of the martial property for a new division, but rather must remand the entire community estate for a new division.

Dallas Raceway, Inc. v. Pavecon, Ltd. (05-10-00712-CV) – Recites well-established (1)  standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) standard for reviewing factual sufficiency of evidence; and (3) elements of substantial performance claim.

Dorfman v. Max Int’l, LLC (05-10-00776-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable; and (2) rule that arbitration agreements must be supported by consideration.

Franklin Templeton Bank & Trust v. Tigert (05-09-01472-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s legal conclusions; (2) rule that the construction of an unambiguous contract is a question of law; (3) rule that the question of whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law; and (4) rule that, when reviewing unambiguous contracts, parol evidence is not considered.

Tegue v. City of Dallas (05-10-01163-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing whether a trial court had subject matter jurisdiction; (2) rule that, when performing governmental functions, political subdivisions derive governmental immunity from the state’s sovereign immunity; (3) rule that governmental immunity from suit deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claims against a governmental entity unless the state consents to suit; and (4) rule that all of the functions of a county are governmental functions.

Whisenant v. Arnett (05-10-00625-CV) – Recites well-established rule that a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts.

Spread the love

Spread the love