For the week of April 11, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued fifteen opinions in civil cases. Six 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:
Amir-Sharif v. Quick Trip Corp. (05-09-01497-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing a trial court’s finding that a litigant is vexatious.
Benser v. Waterfall Crossing Condo. Ass’n, Inc. (05-10-00255-CV) – Recites well-established rule that claims may not be asserted for the first time on appeal.
Dontos v. Bruno (05-10-00178-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that the existence of personal jurisdiction is a question of law; (2) rule that, when a nonresident defendant challenges jurisdiction through a special appearance, the defendant must negate all grounds for personal jurisdiction alleged by the plaintiff in order to prevail; (3) what must be shown to establish “purposeful availment”; (4) what must be shown to establish “general jurisdiction”; and (5) what must be shown to establish “specific jurisdiction.”
In re M.A.M. (05-09-00396-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s decision concerning modification of conservatorship of a child; (2) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; and (3) rule that unchallenged findings of fact are binding on an appellate court unless the contrary is established as a matter of law or there is no evidence to support the finding.
In re Maasoumi (05-10-00448-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate appellate remedy; and (2) rule that a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts.
In re R.M.H. (05-10-00073-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, if a party fails to brief a complaint adequately, he waives that complaint on appeal.
Park N. Serv. Ctr., L.P. v. Applied Circuit Tech., Inc. (05-10-00042-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s decision to submit a jury question; (2) rule that a trial court is required to submit to the jury a properly requested question that is raised by the pleadings and evidence and is necessary to enable the jury to render a verdict; and (3) rule that error in a jury charge is harmful only if it probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment.
Preferred Commc’n Sys., Inc. v. Berberena (05-10-01489-CV) – Recites well-established rule that a corporation may only appear in legal proceedings through an attorney.
R.H. v. Smith (05-09-00564-CV) – Recites well-established (1) holding that a case is “tried” when the trial court’s judgment is based on an evidentiary hearing containing conflicting testimony; (2) standard for reviewing trial court’s ruling on motion to show authority; (3) rule that a trial court has the responsibility to replace a minor’s next friend if the court believes that the next friend has an interest adverse to the minor; and (4) standard for reviewing trial court’s judgment on mediated settlement.