For the week of June 7, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twenty 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 twelve cases are as follows:
Allman v. Butcher (05-09-00191-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) standard for reviewing “matter of law” challenge; (3) standard for reviewing factual sufficiency of evidence; (4) elements of breach of contract claim; and (5) rule that, when presented with conflicting evidence, trier of fact may believe one witness and disbelieve others.
Centex/Vestal v. Friendship West Baptist Church (05-09-00053-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s decision to vacate or confirm arbitration award; (2) presumptions applicable to reviewing arbitration award; and (3) standard for determining whether arbitrator has exceeded his power.
City of Balch Springs v. Hall (05-09-00984-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that governmental immunity defeats trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction; (2) standard for reviewing whether trial court has subject matter jurisdiction; (3) Tort Claims Act waiver of governmental immunity in certain circumstances; (4) rule that, if off-duty police officer observes and responds to a crime, he becomes an on-duty officer; (5) rule regarding whether a person is acting within the scope of his employment; and (6) distinction between sovereign immunity and governmental immunity.
Brown v. EMC Mortgage Corp. (05-08-00914-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that limitations is an affirmative defense and is waived if not pleaded; and (2) rule that an appellant’s reply brief may not be used to raise new issues on appeal.
Michael v. City of Dallas (05-09-00210-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) rules governing shifting burdens of proof in employment discrimination context; and (3) elements of employment discrimination claim.
Owen v. Owen (05-09-00709-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s award of spousal maintenance; (2) principles governing applicability of legal and factual sufficiency to abuse of discretion standard of review; and (3) presumptions applicable to award of spousal maintenance.
Pollard v. Hanschen (05-09-00704-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) no-evidence summary judgment standard; and (3) rule governing tolling of limitations in legal malpractice case until all appeals are exhausted in underlying suit.
Stanley v. Reef Securities, Inc. (05-08-01415-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing post-judgment turnover order; (2) standard for reviewing order denying appointment of receiver; (3) definition of “partnership interest”; (4) definition of “charging order”; (5) rule regarding when turnover relief may properly be sought; (6) rules regarding property which is exempt from turnover relief; (7) rule that, absent an agreement, a partner is not entitled to compensation for services to the partnership; (8) rule that judgment creditor that is successful in obtaining turnover relief is entitled to attorneys’ fees; and (9) rule that federal case law is not binding on state appellate court interpreting state statute.
Streety v. Thi (05-09-00556-CV) – Recites well-established (1) general rule that, if a party revokes consent to settlement agreement prior to judgment being rendered, the settlement agreement is subject to enforcement only through a separate claim for enforcement; and (2) principle that this general rule does not apply to suits affecting the parent-child relationship if the settlement agreement complies with statutory requisites, as statute requires trial court to simply render judgment on such settlement agreements.
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n v. Silver City Club (05-09-00422-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s determination of questions of law; (2) “single-subject rule,” which provides that no bills in the Texas Legislature other than general appropriation bills shall contain more than one subject; (3) rule that a law that contains more than one subject is void as to the subject not expressed in the title; and (4) rule that statutes are liberally construed in favor of their constitutionality.
Vela v. Manning (05-09-00400-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, to preserve error for appeal, record must show that complaint was presented to trial court and either that trial court ruled on the complaint or complaining party objected to trial court’s refusal to rule.
Vocalspace, LLC v. Lorenso (05-09-00473-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing imposition of sanctions; and (2) rule that party requesting sanctions for discovery dispute waives the request if the party does not obtain a ruling on the dispute before start of trial.