For the week of February 28, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twelve opinions in civil cases. Two 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 ten cases are as follows:
Baleares Link Express, S.L. v. GE Engine Servs. (05-09-00114-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) no-evidence summary judgment standard; (3) standard for reviewing trial court’s denial of motion to continue a summary judgment hearing; (4) rule about when a claim accrues for the purposes of limitations; (5) rule governing applicability of the discovery rule; (6) statute of limitations for breach of express of implied warranty claim; and (7) elements of fraud claim.
In re A.F. Reitz Trust (05-11-00153-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed; and (2) rule that, unless the record affirmatively shows the appellate court’s jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the appeal.
In re E.R. (05-09-01505-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s refusal to grant motion for new trial; and (2) holding that an involuntary termination of parental rights involves fundamental constitutional rights.
In re I.J.R. (05-09-00565-CV) – Recites well-established (1) presumption that a trial court has heard a case only after the parties received proper notice; (2) rule that, once a defendant has made an appearance in a cause, he is entitled to notice of the trial setting; (3) holding that lack of notice of a trial setting does not necessarily void the trial court’s judgment because due process merely requires that the method of service be reasonably calculated to inform the parties of the proceeding; (4) rule that the absence of proof in the record that notice was provided does not establish error on the fact of the record; (5) rule that, as a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion; and (6) standard for reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a request to modify child support.
In re I.L.S. (05-09-01375-CV) – Recites well-established rule that a no-answer default judgment may not be rendered against a defendant who has filed an answer.
Gorman v. Meng (05-09-01189-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing applicability of a statute; (2) definition of “an improvement”; and (3) rule governing whether personalty has been affixed to realty.
Lighthouse Holdings, Inc. v. Simms (05-09-01216-CV) – Recites well-established test to determine whether a worker is an employee rather than an independent contractor.
James v. Parish (05-10-00150-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s determination that someone is a vexatious litigant; and (2) elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
Prestige Ford Garland Ltd P’ship (05-09-00211-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing challenges to trial court’s ruling on motion for JNOV; (2) statute of limitations for promissory estoppel claim; and (3) rule that, unless otherwise explicitly agreed, title passes to a buyer when the seller completes physical delivery of the goods, even if a document of title is to be delivered at a different time and place.
Retta v. Mokonen (05-10-00718-CV) – Recites well-established (1) elements which must be pleaded and proven to obtain a temporary injunction; (2) standard for reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a temporary injunction; and (3) rule that a church has the right to control its membership without interference from the courts.