For the week of November 1, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued nine opinions in civil cases. Five 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 four cases are follows:
Christian Care Ctrs., Inc. v. Golenko (05-09-01521-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s order on motion to dismiss health care liability claim; and (2) holding that not every doctor is automatically qualified to testify on every medical question.
Gang v. Sadeghi (05-09-00898-CV) – Recites well-established rule that a court cannot grant summary judgment on grounds not presented in the motion for summary judgment.
In re H.M. (05-09-0139-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that the termination of parental rights is implicates fundamental constitutional rights; and (2) rule that an appeal is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either fact or law.
In re Smith (05-09-00913-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies; (2) rule that complaints about an order appointing a temporary guardian ordinarily becomes moot if a permanent guardian is appointed; and (3) rule that an issue does not become moot if the challenged act is of such short duration that the appellant cannot obtain appellate review before the issue becomes moot and there is a reasonable expectation that the same action will occur again if the appellate court does not consider the issue.