For the week of August 30, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued thirteen opinions in civil cases. Ten 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 three cases are as follows:
In re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. (05-09-01170-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that a trial court abuses its discretion by striking an intervention in the absence of a motion to strike; (2) rule that an order signed during a stay is a legal nullity; (3) definition of “jurisdiction”; (4) definition of “personal jurisdiction”; (5) definition of “subject-matter jurisdiction”; and (6) definition of “comity”. Additionally, holds that “Texas courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a divorce petition in the context of a same-sex marriage.”
Poly-Trucking, Inc. v. KDT Express, Inc. (05-09-00078-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) standard for reviewing factual sufficiency of evidence; (3) definition of “consequential damages”; and (4) rule that consequential damages are not recoverable unless the parties contemplated at the time they made the contract that such damages would be a probable result of the breach.
U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v.Waldrip (05-09-00078-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) standard for reviewing factual sufficiency of evidence; (3) elements of negligence claim; (4) definition of “physical impairment”; and (5) definition of “disfigurement”.