Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of August 29, 2011

For the week of August 29, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twenty-five opinions in civil cases.  Fifteen 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 ten cases are as follows:

City of Dallas v. Brooks (05-10-00692-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing ruling on challenge to trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) definition of “ministerial acts.”

Earth Biofuels, Inc. v. Airo Wireless Media, Inc. (05-09-00783-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) elements required for formation of a valid and binding contract; and (3) elements of breach of contract cause of action.

El Dorado Land Co., L.P. v. City of McKinney (05-10-00381-CV) – Recites well-established (1) definition of plea to the jurisdiction; (2) standard for reviewing ruling on whether trial court had subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) definition of “purchase option.”

Holland v. Lovelace (05-09-00993-CV) – Recites well-established (1) elements which must be established to be entitled to a new trial based on jury misconduct; (2) standard for reviewing trial court’s denial of motion for new trial based on jury misconduct; and (3) rule that a defendant bears the burden to plead, prove, and secure findings to support its affirmative defenses.

Hollingsworth v. Springs (05-10-01215-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing trial court’s ruling on adequacy of an expert report required of healthcare liability claim.

In re FC Stone, LLC (05-11-01037-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that an appellate remedy is inadequate when a trial court refuses to enforce a valid forum-selection clause; and (2) rule that a court may decline to enforce a forum-selection clause if the chosen forum is so inconvenient that enforcing the clause would produce an unjust result.

Manley v. Wachovia Small Bus. Capital (05-09-01228-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and (2) elements which must be proved to recover on a promissory note.

Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. LAN/STV (05-09-00946-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that a trial court may disregard a jury finding only if it is not supported by evidence or if the issue is immaterial; (2) rule that a jury question mandated by law cannot be immaterial; (3) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; and (4) rule that a party cannot complain on appeal of an action it induced or allowed.

Nolan v. Hughes (05-10-00481-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment.

Popcap Games, Inc. v. Mumbo Jumbo, LLC (05-10-00301-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; (2) definition of “direct damages”; (3) definition of “consequential damages”; and (4) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed.

Share