Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of August 2, 2010

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of August 2, 2010

Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of August 2, 2010

For the week of August 2, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued nine opinions in civil cases.  The nine cases are as follows:

Austin State Hosp. v. Graham (05-09-01312-CV) – Recites well-established rule that immunity from liability is an affirmative defense that does not affect a court’s jurisdiction to hear a case.

Dixon v. Herman (05-09-00544-CV) – Recites well-established elements of Deceptive Trade Practices Act cause of action.

Hinton v. City of Garland (05-09-00069-CV) – Recites well-established rule that a post-judgment motion for sanctions constitutes a motion to modify the judgment.

In re Ismoralda Fish Co. Texas, L.L.C. (05-10-00344-CV) – Recites well-established (1) principle that there is no right to a mandamus and that issuance of mandamus is at the discretion of the appellate court; (2) rule that net worth is discoverable in cases where punitive damages may be awarded; and (3) rule that trial court has no discretion to order discovery that exceeds the scope permitted by the rules.

In re Pamela Staley Declaratory Judgment Action (05-08-01171-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) elements of a valid contract; (3) elements of breach of contract claim; (4) rule that a previously denied motion for summary judgment may be granted without further motion or prior notice to the parties; and (5) elements which must be present for res judicata to apply.

In re S.C.S., a child (05-09-00832-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing trial court’s granting of name change for a minor child.

Las Colinas Obstetrics-Gynecology-Infertility Ass’n, P.A. v. Villalba (05-09-00031-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing findings of fact; (2) standard for reviewing conclusions of law; (3) rule that judgment must conform to the pleadings; and (4) rule that a petition must be fair and adequate notice of the claims asserted.

Pate v. MSDW Office Partners, L.P. (05-09-000432-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment; (2) principle that whether a duty exists is a question of law; (3) definition of “invitee”; and (4) duty owed to a licensee.

Young v. Gumfory (05-08-00636-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) rule that, when trial court files findings of fact and conclusions of law following a non-jury trial, the party appealing must complain of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law; (3) standard for reviewing findings of fact; (4) standard for reviewing conclusions of law; (5) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency complaint; (6) definition of a “tender”; and (7) elements required for interpleader relief.

Spread the love

Spread the love