Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of November 7, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of November 7, 2011

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of November 7, 2011

For the week of November 7, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twenty-one opinions in civil cases.  Twelve 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:

Broadnax v. Texas Mut. Ins. Co. (05-11-0589-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that a plaintiff has the absolute right to a non-suit of its case at the moment the plaintiff file a non-suit motion with the clerk or makes a motion in open court as long as the defendant has not made a claim for affirmative relief; (2) rule that an order granting a non-suit, not the requesting of a nonsuit, triggers appellate deadlines; and (3) rule that, without a timely-filed notice of appeal, an appellate court has no jurisdiction over an appeal.

Bruce v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n (05-10-01402-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, in a forcible detainer action, the only issue to be determined is whether a party seeking is entitled to immediate possession; and (2) rule that a forcible detainer action is in addition to any other remedy that a party may have, such as a question regarding title.

GE Money Bank v. Sharif (05-10-01222-CV) –  Recites well-established rule that an order granting a motion for new trial within the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction is not subject to review either by direct appeal from that order or from a final judgment rendered after further proceedings in the trial court.

Imagine Auto. Group, Inc. v. Boardwalk Motor Cars, LLC (05-11-01119-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s determination of the amount of security necessary to supercede a judgment; and (2) rule that attorneys’ fees are not considered “compensatory damages” in a breach of contract case unless the contract provides for fees as compensation.  Additionally, holds that attorneys’ fees are not considered compensatory damages in a Texas Theft Liability Act case.

In re A.T. (05-10-00363-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing an order granting or denying a bill of review; (2) under an abuse of discretion standard, legal and factual insufficiency are not independent grounds for reversal; and (3) statute of limitations applicable to bills of review.

In re Estate of Hudson (05-11-00008-CV) – Recites well-established rule that the proponent of a will has the burden to establish that the will is valid and has not been revoked.

In re J.D.D. (05-10-01488-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing trial court’s decision to modify child support or conservatorship.

Litoff v. Meadows Serv. Corp. (05-10-01173-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard of review of county court’s dismissal for deficient appeal bond; (2) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed; and (3) rule that a court always has the authority to determine its own subject matter jurisdiction.

Walters v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (05-11-01391-CV) – Recites well-established rule that an oral notice of appeal does not constitute a notice of appeal within the meaning of the rules of appellate procedure.

Spread the love

Spread the love