For the week of May 16, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued fourteen opinions in civil cases.  Seven 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 seven cases are as follows:

Burgess v. 84 Fin. L.P. (05-11-00272-CV) – Recites well-established (1) holding that jurisdiction over appeals is established exclusively by constitutional and statutory enactments; and (2) rule that, absent a timely-filed notice of appeal from a final judgment or authorized interlocutory order, appellate court does not have jurisdiction over appeal.

Ex parte City of Irving (05-11-00036-CV) – Recites well-established standards for reviewing matters of statutory construction.

GPA Holding v. Baylor Health Care Sys. (05-09-00586-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) rule that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law; (3) definition of “liquidated damages”; (4) rule that whether a contract term is a liquidated damages clause is a question of law; and (5) rule that a party asserting that a liquidated damages clause is an unenforceable penalty bears the burden of proof.

Jon Scott Salon, Inc. v. Garcia (05-10-00931-CV) – Recites well-established (1) holding that the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the case can be tried on the merits; and (2) standard for reviewing a temporary injunction order.

Lieberman v. Romero (05-08-01636-CV) – Recites well-established rule that a suit may not be brought against a governmental employee in his individual capacity for actions taken within the scope of his employment.

Odems v. Williams (05-11-00384-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, when a party files a timely post-judgment motion, that party is not permitted to bring a restricted appeal.

Yarbrough v. American Contractors Ins. Group (05-10-00562-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing ruling on whether court has subject-matter jurisdiction.