For the week of October 25, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued eighteen opinions in civil cases. Twelve 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 six cases are follows:
Anderton v. Cawley (05-10-00693-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s determination of the amount of security necessary to supersede judgment and (2) definition of “net worth”.
In re Assurances Generales Banque Nationale (05-10-01078-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, under the law of the case doctrine, courts of appeal are ordinarily bound by their prior decisions if there is a subsequent appeal in the case; (2) definition of “mandate”; and (3) rule that, when a trial court fails to follow a court of appeals judgment, mandamus is an appropriate remedy.
In re D.V. (05-10-00413-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that a trial court may terminate the parent-child relationship if the fact-finder finds both that a parent committed one or more enumerated statutory acts and that termination is in the best interest of the child; (2) standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence in a parental termination case; and (3) definition of “endanger”.
In re Sthran (05-10-01176-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for when mandamus relief is available; (2) holding that mandamus relief is largely controlled by equitable principles; and (3) standard for establishing the applicability of laches.
Noyd v. Noyd (05-10-00689-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, absent a timely notice of appeal, the court of appeals does not have jurisdiction over an appeal.
Pick-Up Poker, Inc. v. State (05-09-00562-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, if an appellant does not attack all independent grounds that support a complained-of ruling or judgment, the court of appeals must affirm the ruling or judgment.