For the week of June 14, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twenty-eight opinions in civil cases. Twenty 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:
Munir Bata, L.L.C. v. Vestal (05-10-00346-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that amended judgment signed after expiration of plenary power is void; and (2) rule that notice of appeal must be a separate document rather than included as part of another document.
Beckham Group, P.C. v. Snyder (05-09-00491-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed; and (2) principle that a judgment is final only if it disposes of all parties and all claims.
Bridwell v. Mulder (05-09-01339-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s dismissal for want of prosecution; (2) rule that trial court may not dismiss for want of prosecution without first providing party with notice and opportunity to be heard; (3) rule that failure to appear at trial is not a proper basis for dismissal with prejudice; and (4) definitions of terms “bench writ,” “bench warrant”, and “writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum”.
Carter v. Lavergne (05-09-00333-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s ruling on motion for new trial; (2) deadline for filing motion for new trial; (3) deadline for filing amended motion for new trial; and (4) rule that written orders or judgments control over conflicting oral pronouncements.
Europa Int’l, Ltd. v. Direct Access Trader Corp. (05-08-00771-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing turnover orders; and (2) elements which must be met to establish entitlement to turnover order.
Excel Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Aim High Logistics Servs., LLC (05-09-00154-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing challenge to legal sufficiency of adverse finding as to an issue on which the appellant did not have the burden of proof; (2) definition of “more than a scintilla of evidence”; and (3) rules governing when lost profits may be recovered and how damages for lost profits are measured.
Harlow Land Co., Ltd. v. City of Melissa (05-08-01178-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that party may generally not attack a judgment on appeal if the party has voluntarily accepted the benefits of the judgment; and (2) rule that appellate court may consider documents outside of the appellate record for the purpose of determining whether appellate court has jurisdiction.
McClain v. USA Today Newspaper (05-08-01123-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, absent a filing that extends the deadline, the deadline to file a notice of appeal is 30 days after judgment; (2) rule that deadline to file notice of appeal can be extended, but only if notice of appeal is filed within 15 days after the deadline; (3) rule that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys; and (4) rule that timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional.