Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of July 12, 2010

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of July 12, 2010

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of July 12, 2010

For the week of July 12, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued fifteen opinions in civil cases.  Nine 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:

City of Dallas v. Turley (05-09-00791-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that governmental immunity from suit defeats a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction; (2) standard of reviewing trial court’s ruling on plea to the jurisdiction; and (3) rule that plea to the jurisdiction can be based on pleadings or on evidence.

Communities Helping Communities, Inc. v. City of Lancaster (05-08-01516-CV) – Recites well-established standards for reviewing traditional summary judgment and no-evidence summary judgment.

Drysdale Energy, L.P. v. Petrzelka (05-09-00485-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing dismissal for want of prosecution.

Ritter v. Las Colonitas Condo. Ass’n (05-09-00666-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) rule that summary judgment may be granted on claims added after the motion for summary judgment was filed if the movant has conclusively disproven ultimate facts central to all causes of action or if the claims subsequently added are derivative of the claims addressed in the motion; and (3) rule that substantive defects in affidavits may be raised for the first time on appeal.

Texas Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs. v. ASI Gymnastics, Inc. (05-09-01469-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing whether agency has exclusive jurisdiction; (2) presumption that district courts are authorized to review disputes unless the constitution or other law conveys exclusive jurisdiction on another court or administrative agency; (3) principle that an agency has exclusive jurisdiction when a pervasive regulatory scheme indicates that the legislature intended for the regulatory process to be the exclusive means of remedying the problem to which the regulation is addressed; and (4) rule that, if an agency has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve a dispute, a party must first exhaust administrative remedies before trial court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Webb v. Voga (05-09-00074-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that subject matter jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal and may not be waived; (2) rule that court of appeals must ascertain that subject matter jurisdiction exists even if the parties have not questioned it; (3) standard for reviewing standing; (4) definition of “standing”; (5) rule that Texas courts do not have the authority to render advisory opinions; (6) definition of “advisory opinion”; (7) rule that, if a judgment is void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction, court of appeals must vacate the judgment and dismiss the case; and (8) definition of “restrictive covenant”.

Spread the love

Spread the love