For the week of August 15, 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 nine cases are as follows:

Affordable Motor Co., Inc. v. LNA, LLC (05-10-00076-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment.

Austin Commercial Contractors, L.P. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc. (05-10-01542-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate appellate remedy.

City of Combine v. Robinson (05-10-01384-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing whether the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) rule that intentional torts do not fall within the scope of the waiver of immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act.

City of Dallas v. Patrick (05-10-00727-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that a landowner has no duty to warn or protect trespassers from obvious defects or conditions; and (2) standard for reviewing trial court’s ruling on its subject matter jurisdiction.

Defterios v. Dallas Bayou Bend, Ltd. (05-08-01726-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) rule that, to preserve a factual sufficiency complaint for appeal, a party must present the specific complaint to the trial court in a motion for new trial; (3) definition of “consequential damages”; (4) elements of proximate cause; and (5) definition of “cause-in-fact.”

Elite Door & Trim, Inc. v. Tapia (05-10-00635-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing dismissal for want of prosecution; (2) rule that the fair notice pleading standard does not require the pleader to plead evidentiary matters with meticulous particularity; (3) elements of negligence cause of action; and (4) elements of “breach of warranty for services” cause of action.

In re Cornerstone Healthcare Holding Group, Inc. (05-11-00634-CV) – Recites well-established rule that an appellate remedy is inadequate when a trial court improperly refuses to enforce a forum-selection clause.

In re R.M. (05-11-00485-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing order committing a person for inpatient mental health services; and (2) standard for reviewing order to administer psychoactive medication.

Khyber Holdings v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (05-10-01334-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment.