Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of February 28, 2011

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.