For the week of August 2, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued nine opinions in civil cases.  The nine cases are as follows:

Austin State Hosp. v. Graham (05-09-01312-CV) – Recites well-established rule that immunity from liability is an affirmative defense that does not affect a court’s jurisdiction to hear a case.

Dixon v. Herman (05-09-00544-CV) – Recites well-established elements of Deceptive Trade Practices Act cause of action.

Hinton v. City of Garland (05-09-00069-CV) – Recites well-established rule that a post-judgment motion for sanctions constitutes a motion to modify the judgment.

In re Ismoralda Fish Co. Texas, L.L.C. (05-10-00344-CV) – Recites well-established (1) principle that there is no right to a mandamus and that issuance of mandamus is at the discretion of the appellate court; (2) rule that net worth is discoverable in cases where punitive damages may be awarded; and (3) rule that trial court has no discretion to order discovery that exceeds the scope permitted by the rules.

In re Pamela Staley Declaratory Judgment Action (05-08-01171-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) elements of a valid contract; (3) elements of breach of contract claim; (4) rule that a previously denied motion for summary judgment may be granted without further motion or prior notice to the parties; and (5) elements which must be present for res judicata to apply.

In re S.C.S., a child (05-09-00832-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing trial court’s granting of name change for a minor child.

Las Colinas Obstetrics-Gynecology-Infertility Ass’n, P.A. v. Villalba (05-09-00031-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing findings of fact; (2) standard for reviewing conclusions of law; (3) rule that judgment must conform to the pleadings; and (4) rule that a petition must be fair and adequate notice of the claims asserted.

Pate v. MSDW Office Partners, L.P. (05-09-000432-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment; (2) principle that whether a duty exists is a question of law; (3) definition of “invitee”; and (4) duty owed to a licensee.

Young v. Gumfory (05-08-00636-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) rule that, when trial court files findings of fact and conclusions of law following a non-jury trial, the party appealing must complain of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law; (3) standard for reviewing findings of fact; (4) standard for reviewing conclusions of law; (5) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency complaint; (6) definition of a “tender”; and (7) elements required for interpleader relief.