For the week of January 3, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued fourteen opinions in civil cases. Nine 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 five cases are follows:
Broderick v. Kaye Bassman Int’l Corp. (05-09-00692-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) elements which must be established to succeed in bill of review claim; (3) standard for reviewing conclusions of law; (4) standard for reviewing findings of fact; (5) rules governing whether a settlement agreement is enforceable; and (6) definition of “high-low agreement.”
Housing Auth. v. Killingsworth (05-10-00172-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that governmental immunity from suit defeats trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction; (2) standard for reviewing challenge to trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) standard for reviewing statutory construction. Additionally, defines “properly executed.”
Pierre v. Swearingen (05-09-01085-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing findings of fact.
Saleh v. Hollinger (05-10-00339-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that an appellate court is obligated to review sua sponte issues affecting its jurisdiction; (2) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed; (3) rule that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred or taken away by consent or waiver; and (4) standard for reviewing trial court’s order on a motion to dismiss a health care liability claim.
Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Regency Ctrs., L.P. (05-010-01297-CV) – Recites well-established definition of “reasonable explanation.”