For the week of August 8, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued thirty-three opinions in civil cases.  Nineteen 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 fourteen cases are as follows:

Barrerra v. White (05-10-00060-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence; and (2) rule that, if a party objects to evidence or expert testimony, the proponent of the evidence or testimony has the burden of demonstrating admissibility.

Bundren v. Holly Oaks Townhomes Ass’n, Inc. (05-09-00788-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that unchallenged findings of fact are binding on the appellate court unless the contrary is established as a matter of law or there is no evidence to support the finding; (2) rule that Texas follows the “fair notice” standard of pleading, which relieves the pleader of the burden of pleading evidentiary matters with meticulous particularity; (3) rule that, under the “fair notice” standard of pleading, a pleading is adequate if an opposing attorney of reasonable competence could ascertain the nature and basic issues of the controversy; (4) standard for reviewing trial court’s decision to award or not award attorneys’ fees; and (5) rule that attorneys’ fees awarded can be more than actual damages awarded.

Cunningham v. Anglin (05-10-01023-CV) – Recites well-established holding that due process requires that a person be afforded reasonable notice and hearing before being deprived of a constitutionally protected interest.

Deadmon v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (05-09-01415-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, if there were claims against a party in one petition, but all claims against the party are omitted in a subsequent petition, this operates as a voluntary dismissal of the party from the lawsuit; (2) rule that a party is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims; (3) when a trial court sustains a plea to the jurisdiction without specifying its grounds for doing so, an appellant must challenge each independent ground asserted in the plea; and (4) rule that there is no waiver-by-conduct exception to sovereign immunity.

Graham v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. (05-09-01310-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment; and (2) rule that a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure.

Harber v. CTI Petroleum, Inc. (05-10-00432-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing factual sufficiency of evidence.

Hightower v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr. (05-10-00300-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s determination regarding the adequacy of an expert report supporting a  health care liability claim; and (2) rule that statutes are presumed to be constitutional.

In re E.D. (05-11-00538-CV) – Recites well-established definition of “clear and convincing evidence.”

In re State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (05-11-00559-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, in order to obtain mandamus relief, a party must show both that the trial court abused its discretion and that the party has no adequate appellate remedy; and (2) holding that a denial of discovery that severely compromises a party’s ability to present a viable claim or defense at trial renders an appellate remedy inadequate.

NexBank, SSB v. Orix Fin. Corp. (05-10-00998-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence.

Olsen v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline (05-09-00945-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) rule that court reporters are not appropriate at summary judgment hearings; and (3) rule that a trial court is only required to conduct a hearing on a motion for new trial when the motion presents a question of fact upon which evidence must be heard.

Quintana v. Crossfit Dallas, L.L.C. (05-10-00146-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment.

State Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Adkins (05-10-00406-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence; and (2) rule that not every licensed doctor is automatically qualified to testify on every medical question.

Tommy Gio, Inc. v. Dunlop (05-10-00259-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, when a plaintiff alleges that some failure on his attorney’s part caused an adverse result in prior litigation, the plaintiff has the burden to prove that, but for his attorney’s negligence, he would have prevailed in the prior litigation; and (2) standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence.