Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of May 9, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of May 9, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of May 9, 2011

For the week of May 9, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twelve 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 six cases are as follows:

Beltran v. Brookshire Grocery Co. (05-09-01548-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing whether jury findings irreconcilably conflict; (2) rule that appellate court may not strike down jury answers on the basis of conflict if there is any reasonable basis on which they can be reconciled; (3) rule that, absent a timely objection to a fatal conflict in jury’s answers, any complaint regarding such conflict is waived; (4) rule that, if a party improperly harmonizes or reconciles jury’s findings, a party can raise that issue on appeal without objecting to the jury’s verdict before the jury is discharged; (5) rule that a trial court may disregard a jury finding only if it is unsupported by evidence or if the issue is immaterial; and (6) rule that a properly submitted jury question can be rendered immaterial by other findings.

Cypress Tex. Lloyd’s Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (05-09-00753-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing challenges to trial court’s ruling on motions for JNOV.

Lawler v. DiGiuseppe (05-09-01468-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, when a party tries a case on alternative theories of recovery and a jury returns favorable findings on two or more theories, the party has a right to judgment on the theory entitling him to the greatest relief; and (2) rule that trial court’s judgment must conform t the pleadings, the nature of the case proved, and the verdict.

Gamma Group, Inc. v. Home State County Mut. Ins. Co. (05-10-00070-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment.

Hidalgo v. Hidalgo (05-06-00966-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s ruling in a suit to enforce a divorce decree; (2) standard for reviewing trial court’s construction of an unambiguous contract; (3) rule that an unambiguous contract will be enforced as written regardless of whether one or more of the parties contracted foolishly; (4) rule that courts are not authorized to rewrite agreements by inserting additional terms, definitions, or provisions that the parties could have included themselves but did not; and (5) rule that courts cannot ignore express terms of a contract.

Neary v. Mikob Props., Inc. (05-09-01175-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; and (2) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment.

Spread the love

Spread the love