Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of May 23, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of May 23, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of May 23, 2011

For the week of May 23, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued seven opinions in civil cases.  Two 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:

Darocy v. Abildtrup (05-10-00369-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) rule that the fact finder is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony; and (3) elements of aider-and-abettor liability claim.

In re Lavizadeh (05-11-00511-CV) – Recites well-established standard for obtaining mandamus relief.

Flores v. Appler (05-09-01523-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that it is proper to include traditional and no-evidence grounds in a single motion for summary judgment; (2) rule that, when a trial court does not state the basis for granting summary judgment, the appellant must negate all grounds; and (3) rule that a no-evidence motion for summary judgment must state the element or elements as to which there is no evidence.

Goodenberger v. Ellis (05-10-00405-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, to present an issue to an appellate court, a party’s brief must contain citation to legal authorities and to the appellate record; (2) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment; (3) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (4) definition of “easement”; (5) elements of easement by estoppel claim; (6) rule that an easement by estoppel may not be imposed against a subsequent purchaser for value who has no notice, actual or constructive, or the easement claimed; and (7) elements of implied easement claim.

Leighton v. Rebeles (05-10-00990-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that a court of appeals may review the portion of an order that is appealable and refuse to consider the portion which is non-appealable; (2) holding that the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter of the suit pending a final decision on the rights of the parties; (3) standard for reviewing a trial court’s grant or denial of a temporary injunction; and (4) rule that all orders that grant a temporary injunction are required to include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits.

Spread the love

Spread the love