For the week of May 2, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued thirteen 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 eight cases are as follows:

Badhiwala v. Favors (05-10-00211-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing trial court’s order on motion to dismiss health care liability claim.

Bank of Am. v. Babu (05-09-00726-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s conclusions of law; (2) standard for reviewing trial court’s decisions on equitable relief; (3) rule that a party has constructive notice of instruments properly recorded in the proper county; (4) definition of “equitable subrogation”; and (5) rule that existence of duty is a question of law for the court to decide from facts surrounding the occurrence in question.

Collins v. Collins (05-09-00726-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that assets belonging to a third party are not part of the marital estate; and (2) rule that, when reversible error is committed in the division of property upon divorce, a court of appeals is not permitted to render a different division or to remand only certain portions of the martial property for a new division, but rather must remand the entire community estate for a new division.

Dallas Raceway, Inc. v. Pavecon, Ltd. (05-10-00712-CV) – Recites well-established (1)  standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) standard for reviewing factual sufficiency of evidence; and (3) elements of substantial performance claim.

Dorfman v. Max Int’l, LLC (05-10-00776-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable; and (2) rule that arbitration agreements must be supported by consideration.

Franklin Templeton Bank & Trust v. Tigert (05-09-01472-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s legal conclusions; (2) rule that the construction of an unambiguous contract is a question of law; (3) rule that the question of whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law; and (4) rule that, when reviewing unambiguous contracts, parol evidence is not considered.

Tegue v. City of Dallas (05-10-01163-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing whether a trial court had subject matter jurisdiction; (2) rule that, when performing governmental functions, political subdivisions derive governmental immunity from the state’s sovereign immunity; (3) rule that governmental immunity from suit deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claims against a governmental entity unless the state consents to suit; and (4) rule that all of the functions of a county are governmental functions.

Whisenant v. Arnett (05-10-00625-CV) – Recites well-established rule that a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts.