Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of July 26, 2010

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of July 26, 2010

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of July 26, 2010

For the week of July 26, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twenty-one 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 thirteen cases are as follows:

Ahrens & Deangelli, P.L.L.C. v. Flinn (05-09-00415-CV) – Recites well-established (1) holding that Texas long-arm statute allows Texas courts to reach as far as federal due process requirements will allow; (2) requirements for asserting personal jurisdiction over a non-resident; and (3) standard for reviewing trial court’s ruling on special appearance.

Barton v. Sclafani Invs., Inc. (05-08-00790-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing challenges to trial court rulings on motions for directed verdict and JNOV.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. LLC (05-09-01500-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing whether trial court has subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) rule that a unit of state government is immune from suit and liability absent a waiver of immunity or legislative consent to sue.

Gay v. Advenir at Forest Lane (05-10-00401-CV) – Recites well-established rule that a notice of restricted appeal must be filed within six months after the underlying judgment or order was signed.

Johnson v. Managed Mortgage Inv. Fund, LP (05-09-01080-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed; and (2) rule that one court may not punish a party for contempt in violating the order of another court.

Daniel P. McDonald, M.D., P.A. v. Wachovia Bank (05-09-01028-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for determining whether appellate court has jurisdiction over an appeal; and (2) rule that a trial court judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record.

Pandozy v. City of Dallas (05-09-00587-CV) – Recites well-established “doctrine of virtual representation”.

PopCap Games, Inc. v. MumboJumbo, LLC (05-10-00301-CV) – Recites well-established rule that attorneys’ fees awarded by trial court need not be superseded.

Roe v. Ladymon (05-08-00417-CV) – Recites well-established rule that a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to submit.

Scheler v. Smith (05-08-01439-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) rule that, when multiple grounds are raised in a motion for summary judgment and the trial court does not specify the grounds relied upon for its ruling, the appellate court will affirm the summary judgment if any of the grounds advanced in the motion are meritorious; (3) rule that, if an appellant does not challenge each possible ground on which summary judgment could have been granted, a court of appeals must uphold the summary judgment on the unchallenged ground; and (4) rule that, if a party has negligence and/or breach of contract claims available, an implied warranty does not arise.

Smith v. Rhodes Props., Ltd. (05-08-00856-CV) – Recites well-established definition of “ministerial act”.

TXU Portfolio Mgmt. Co., L.P. v. FPL Energy, LLC (05-08-01584-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, in general, whether a contractual provision is an enforceable liquidated damages provision or an enenforceable penalty is a question of law for the court to decide.

Wehrle v. Pacific Enter. Bank (05-10-00600-CV) – Recites well-established principle that a judgment which finally disposes of all remaining parties and claims is a final judgment, regardless of the language used in the judgment.

Spread the love

Spread the love