Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of July 4, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of July 4, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of July 4, 2011

For the week of July 4, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued ten opinions in civil cases.  Four 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:

Adams v. Staxxring, Inc. (05-10-01142-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing waiver of arbitration; and (2) rule that there is a strong presumption against waiver of arbitration rights.

American Express Centurion Bank v. Minckler (05-10-01045-CV) – Recites well-established (1)  standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; and (2) rule that a trial court’s oral comments from the bench do not constitute findings of fact.

Balistreri-Amrhein v. AHI (05-09-01377-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence; and (2) rule that, while a bankruptcy proceeding stays a suit against a debtor, it does not stay a suit filed by the debtor.

City of Dallas v. CKS Asset Mgmt., Inc. (05-10-01010-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction; and (2) elements of a takings or inverse-condemnation claim.

Kostechko v. Mazaheri (05-10-00793-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that strict compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure related to the issuance, service, and return of citation must be shown on the face of the record or the attempted service will be rendered invalid and of no effect; and (2) rule that it is the responsibility of the one requesting service, not the process server, to see that service is properly accomplished.

Vanderwerff v. Larriviel (05-10-00942-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) rule that an oral promise to pay a past-due debt, if the promise is made before an action on the debt is barred by limitations, can create a valid contract which will support an action by the creditor after the limitations period has expired as to the original debt; and (2) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence.

Spread the love

Spread the love