For the week of June 20, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued seventeen 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 nine cases are as follows:

Crone v. Bank of America, N.A. (05-10-00077-CV) – Recites well-established rule that appellate complaints dependent on the state of the evidence cannot be reviewed without a complete appellate record.

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 whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law; and (4) rule that parol evidence is not considered when reviewing unambiguous contracts.

Hanley-Wood, LLC v. Poss (05-10-00595-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s decision to confirm arbitration award; and (2) rule that an arbitrator exceeds his powers when he decides matters not properly before him.

In re Estate of Brown (05-11-00120-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed; and (2) rule that, unless the record affirmatively shows the propriety of appellate jurisdiction, an appellate court must dismiss.

In re Pegasus Funds TFN Trading Partners, LP (05-11-00580CV) – Recites well-established rule that a stay is automatically triggered by the filing a bankruptcy petition, and this stay deprives state courts of jurisdiction over proceedings against the debtor.

Lawrence v. Bottling Group, L.L.C. (05-10-00112-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing questions of statutory construction.

Martinez v. ACCC Ins. Co. (05-09-01145-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) rule that, when more than one ground is asserted in a motion for summary judgment and the trial court does not specify the grounds upon which it rendered summary judgment, an appellant must challenge each ground asserted; and (3) rule that an insured’s failure to cooperate with its insurer will not discharge the insurer’s obligations under the policy unless the insurer is actually prejudiced or deprived of a valid defense by the actinos of the insured.

Owusu v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. (05-10-00175-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2)  elements of common law “account stated” cause of action; and (3) rule that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys.

Pagare v. Pagare (05-09-01342-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing trial court’s ruling in dividing parties’ property in a divorce proceeding.