Dallas Court of Appeals cases for the week of September 5, 2011

For the week of September 5, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued fourteen opinions in civil cases.  Seven 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 seven cases are as follows:

Barnett v. Crockett (05-11-00515-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, if there is no final judgment and no complained-of order subject to interlocutory appeal, appellate court has no jurisdiction over an appeal

Forney 921 Lot Development Partners I, L.P. v. Paul Taylor Homes, Ltd. (05-09-01000-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; (2) standard for no-evidence summary judgment; (2) rule that a party may not file a no-evidence summary judgment as to his own affirmative defense, as at trial he would have the burden to prove that matter; (3) definition of “quasi-estoppel”; (4) elements of fraud claim; and (5) rule that general partners of a limited partnership are jointly and severally liable with each other and with the partnership for partnership debts.

In re H.M.S. (05-09-01456-CV) – Recites well-established rule that disqualification cannot be waived and can be raised at any time.

In re H.M.S. (05-10-00061-CV) (companion case to the case immediately above) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, outside of some specific exceptions, witnesses must be excluded from the courtroom upon the request of a party; (2) rule that the erroneous failure to exclude witnesses from the courtroom is not reversible unless it is shown to be harmful; (3) standard for reviewing an order denying a motion to recuse; and (4) standard for reviewing a trial court’s award of sanctions.

In re M.A.B. (05-11-00653-CV) – Recites well-established rule that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional.

In re Robinson (05-11-01052-CV) – Recites well-established rule that, in order to obtain mandamus relief, a party must show both that the trial court has abused its discretion and that there is no adequate appellate remedy.

Tehuti v. Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP (05-11-00449-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) rule that appellate jurisdiction is never presumed; and (2) rule that, unless the record affirmatively shows the propriety of appellate jurisdiction, an appellate court must dismiss the appeal.

Share