Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of August 16, 2010

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of August 16, 2010

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of August 16, 2010

For the week of August 16, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued fourteen opinions in civil cases.  Seven 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 seven cases are as follows:

Booker v. Bank of America, N.A. (05-09-00755-CV) –  Recites well-established no-evidence summary judgment standard.

Berthelot v. Brinkman (05-09-00216-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) burden of proof in declaratory judgment action; (2) traditional summary judgment standard; (3) no-evidence summary judgment standard; (4) definition of “real property”; (5) definition of “personal property”; and (6) standard for determining when parol evidence is admissible.

Chubb Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Andrew’s Restoration, Inc. (05-08-01099-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency challenge; (2) standard for reviewing factual sufficiency challenge; (3) rule that the statute of frauds applies to a promise by one person to pay another’s debt; (4) elements of a valid contract; (5) elements which must be shown to prove that an offer was made; (6) definition of “illegal contract”; (7) rule that, whether a contract is unconscionable at the time it is formed is a question of law; (8) factors considered in determining whether a contract is unconscionable; (9) factors that may contribute to an “unfair bargaining process”; (10) rule that, if possible, appellate court must interpret jury’s findings in a manner to support the judgment; (11) rule that an appellate court is obligated to follow the law as set forth in that appellate court’s prior panel decisions unless the law is changed by the court en banc or by a higher authority; (12) rule that a party is not entitled to recovery of attorneys’ fees in a DTPA case where a jury awards no damages; and (13) rule that, when a trial court omits a jury question, the party who relies on that question must tender that question in writing in substantially correct form and obtain a ruling in order to preserve error.

In re Cullar (05-10-00979-CV) – Recites well-established rule that an appellate court may not resolve factual disputes in a mandamus proceeding.

Sheehan v. Adams (05-08-01340-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing judgment notwithstanding the verdict; (2) rule that a vital fact may not be established by piling inference upon inference; (3) principle that a defendant cannot be held liable under the DTPA for failure to disclose facts that the defendant does not know; and (4) rule that pure expressions of opinion will not support an action for fraud.

TCAP Corp. v. Gervin (05-09-00620-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing rulings on applications for turnover orders; and (2) principle that, once a partnership distribution is made, it is no longer the partnership’s interest and instead becomes the partner’s personal property.

Winn v. EPG Partners, LLC (05-08-00716-CV) – Recites well-established rule that a party to a lawsuit cannot ask something of the trial court and then complain on appeal that the trial court committed error in granting that party’s request.

Spread the love

Spread the love