For the week of September 5, 2011, 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:
Barnett v. Crockett (05-11-00515-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, if there is no final judgment and no complained-of order subject to interlocutory appeal, appellate court has no jurisdiction over an appeal
Forney 921 Lot Development Partners I, L.P. v. Paul Taylor Homes, Ltd. (05-09-01000-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) standard for no-evidence summary judgment; (2) rule that a party may not file a no-evidence summary judgment as to his own affirmative defense, as at trial he would have the burden to prove that matter; (3) definition of “quasi-estoppel”; (4) elements of fraud claim; and (5) rule that general partners of a limited partnership are jointly and severally liable with each other and with the partnership for partnership debts.
In re H.M.S. (05-09-01456-CV) – Recites well-established rule that disqualification cannot be waived and can be raised at any time.
In re H.M.S. (05-10-00061-CV) (companion case to the case immediately above) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, outside of some specific exceptions, witnesses must be excluded from the courtroom upon the request of a party; (2) rule that the erroneous failure to exclude witnesses from the courtroom is not reversible unless it is shown to be harmful; (3) standard for reviewing an order denying a motion to recuse; and (4) standard for reviewing a trial court’s award of sanctions.
In re M.A.B. (05-11-00653-CV) – Recites well-established rule that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional.
In re Robinson (05-11-01052-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, in order to obtain mandamus relief, a party must show both that the trial court has abused its discretion and that there is no adequate appellate remedy.
Tehuti v. Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP (05-11-00449-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed; and (2) rule that, unless the record affirmatively shows the propriety of appellate jurisdiction, an appellate court must dismiss the appeal.