For the week of September 20, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued fifteen opinions in civil cases.  Eleven 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 four cases are as follows:

In re D.J.L. (05-10-00203-CV) – Recites well-established standard for determining whether a party is entitled to a restricted appeal.

In re Energy Solutions, L.P. (05-10-01158-CV) – Recites well-established rule that mandamus is not available for erroneous denial of motion to recuse.

In re Frost National Bank, N.A. (05-10-01097-CV) – Recites well-established rule that there is no adequate remedy at law when a trial court fails to enforce a valid jury waiver.

P&A Real Estate, Inc. v. American Bank of Tex. – (05-10-00538-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, when a party files a timely post-judgment motion, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction over a restricted appeal; (2) rule that motion for new trial is effective even though it was filed under the wrong cause number; (3) rule that, if there is no suggestion of confusion, notice of appeal is effective even though it was filed under the wrong cause number; and (4) rule that, without a timely filed notice of appeal, court of appeals lacks jurisdiction.