Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of June 20, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of June 20, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of June 20, 2011

For the week of June 20, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued seventeen 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 nine cases are as follows:

Crone v. Bank of America, N.A. (05-10-00077-CV) – Recites well-established rule that appellate complaints dependent on the state of the evidence cannot be reviewed without a complete appellate record.

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 whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law; and (4) rule that parol evidence is not considered when reviewing unambiguous contracts.

Hanley-Wood, LLC v. Poss (05-10-00595-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s decision to confirm arbitration award; and (2) rule that an arbitrator exceeds his powers when he decides matters not properly before him.

In re Estate of Brown (05-11-00120-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed; and (2) rule that, unless the record affirmatively shows the propriety of appellate jurisdiction, an appellate court must dismiss.

In re Pegasus Funds TFN Trading Partners, LP (05-11-00580CV) – Recites well-established rule that a stay is automatically triggered by the filing a bankruptcy petition, and this stay deprives state courts of jurisdiction over proceedings against the debtor.

Lawrence v. Bottling Group, L.L.C. (05-10-00112-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing questions of statutory construction.

Martinez v. ACCC Ins. Co. (05-09-01145-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) rule that, when more than one ground is asserted in a motion for summary judgment and the trial court does not specify the grounds upon which it rendered summary judgment, an appellant must challenge each ground asserted; and (3) rule that an insured’s failure to cooperate with its insurer will not discharge the insurer’s obligations under the policy unless the insurer is actually prejudiced or deprived of a valid defense by the actinos of the insured.

Owusu v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. (05-10-00175-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2)  elements of common law “account stated” cause of action; and (3) rule that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys.

Pagare v. Pagare (05-09-01342-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing trial court’s ruling in dividing parties’ property in a divorce proceeding.

Spread the love

Spread the love