For the week of February 21, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued thirteen opinions in civil cases.  Eight 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 as follows:

All Metals Fabricating, Inc. v. Foster Gen. Contracting, Inc. (05-08-00911-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment; (3) rule that, when multiple grounds are raised in a motion for summary judgment and the trial court does not specify the grounds relied upon for its ruling, the appellate court will affirm the summary judgment if any of the grounds advanced in the motion are meritorious; (4) rule that, when summary judgment evidence discloses facts which render the position of the summary judgment movant untenable, the trial court may consider such evidence regardless of defects in the non-movant’s pleadings; (5) standard for reviewing trial court’s evidentiary rulings; and (6) rule that, in construing a written contract, a court must attempt to harmonize and give effect to all of the provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered meaningless.

Bryant v. Jeter (05-09-01479-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, to complain on appeal about the denial of a motion for continuance, the record must show that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention and either that the trial court denied the motion or that the trial court refused to rule on the motion and the complaining party objected to the refusal; and (2) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment.

Lam v. Nguyen (05-09-00922-CV) – Recites well-established (1) burdens upon both parties when a party seek summary judgment on his own affirmative defense; (2) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; and (3) rule that statute of frauds does not bar a fraud inducement claim in which a plaintiff seeks to obtain only out-of-pocket costs, but does bar a claim for fraudulent inducement claim in which a plaintiff seeks the benefit of the bargain that she would have obtained had the promise been performed.

Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (05-09-01013-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing conclusions of law; (2) standard for reviewing findings of fact; (3) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of the evidence; (4) standard for reviewing factual sufficiency of the evidence; (5) rule that a void deed cannot pass title; (6) a forged deed is void; and (7) rule that a certificate of acknowledgment on a deed is prima facie evidence that the grantor appeared before the notary and executed the deed for the purposes and consideration expressed therein.

Weaver & Tidwell, L.L.P. v. Guarantee Co. of N. Am. USA (05-10-00557-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing order denying motion to compel arbitration in matters subject to the Federal Arbitration Act.