For the week of June 27, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twenty-one opinions in civil cases. Fourteen 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:
Bioderm Skin Care, LLC v. Sok (05-10-00044-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s order denying motion to dismiss health care liability claim; (2) definition of “health care liability claim”; and (3) definition of “health care.”
Buie v. Buguio (05-09-01100-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, without a reporter’s record, appellate court cannot assess an assertion that the trial court judgment was biased and gave preferential treatment to one party.
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Hubener (05-09-01498-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s decision on whether to terminate a receivership; and (2) definition of “short sale.”
Corniello v. State Bank & Trust (05-10-00315-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment; (3) standard for reviewing trial court’s finding as to the date that a party received notice of a judgment; (4) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of the evidence; (5) standard for reviewing factual sufficiency of the evidence; and (6) rule that a property owner is qualified to testify to the value of his property even if he is not an expert and would not be qualified to testify to the value of other property.
Ford Motor Co. v. Wiles (05-09-01141-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of the evidence.
Karlseng v. Cooke (05-09-01002-CV) – Recites well-established (1) holding that arbitration of disputes is strongly favored under both federal and Texas law; (2) rule that arbitration awards are entitled to great deference by the courts; (3) standard for reviewing trial court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award; and (4) rule that an arbitrator’s duty of disclosure is triggered by facts that might, to an objective observer, create a reasonable impression of the arbitrator’s partiality.
Texas Delta Mech., Inc. v. Republic Underwriters, Ins. Co. (05-09-00940-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing findings of fact; (2) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of the evidence; (3) standard for reviewing factual sufficiency of the evidence; and (4) rule that a party’s unpleaded issue may be deemed tried by consent when evidence on the issue is developed under circumstances indicating that both parties understood the issue was in the case and the opposing party fails to make an appropriate complaint.