For the week of June 13, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twelve opinions in civil cases. Eight 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 four cases are as follows:
City of Dallas v. Hughes (05-10-00511-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing a challenge to the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction; (2) rule that governmental immunity protects political subdivisions of the state, including cities, counties, and school districts, from suit and liability; (3) immunity from suit deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction; (4) rule that a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to invoke a waiver of governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act; (5) rule that the Texas Recreational Use Statute controls over the Texas Tort Claims Act and limits a city’s duty to a plaintiff engaged in recreation on the premises; (6) definition of “gross negligence”; and (7) rule that the Texas Recreational Use Statute does not obligate a landowner to warn of known conditions.
Hackett v. Park Springs Townhomes (05-11-00568-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed; (2) rule that, unless the record affirmatively shows the propriety of appellate jurisdiction, an appellate court must dismiss; and (3) rule that, without a timely-filed notice of appeal, appellate court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.
Hartford Ins. Group v. Perez (05-11-00195-CV) – Recites well-established rule that the deadline for filing a notice of appeal runs from the date a trial court dismisses a case rather than the date the trial court rules on a motion to reinstate the case.
In re Estate of Brown (05-10-01243-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed; (2) rule that, unless the record affirmatively shows the propriety of appellate jurisdiction, an appellate court must dismiss; and (3) rule that, unless an interlocutory appeal is specifically authorized by the Texas constitution or by a statute, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals taken from final judgments.