The Texas Supreme Court recently reviewed an eminent domain, State v. Central Expressway Sign Associates, where the trial court excluded the state’s expert report on the fair market value of real property because he failed to account for the revenue generated by the use of the property.
Specifically, the State of Texas condemned a 3,950-square foot parcel of
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently all but held that a non-resident officer and director of a Texas corporation is subejct to personal jurisdiction in Texas. After reviewing the law on personal jurisdiction, the court decided that there was no general jurisdiction over the defendants who were California residents.
Turning to specific jurisdiction, the court
When is an affidavit necessary rather than a verification?
In Wimmer v. Hanna Prime, Inc., Hanna Prime brought suit against Wimmer on a sworn account. Wimmer answered with a verification in which he asserted that he did not contract for the debt in his personal capacity and was not liable. His verification stated that
This blog entry comes courtesy of Cowles & Thompson‘s Melinda Newman:
The Eastland Court of Appeals recently held that a trial court abused its discretion by refusing to hear a special appearance motion filed by a California corporation until after the defendant’s corporate representative appeared for deposition in Texas. In IRN Realty Corporation v.
The Texas Supreme Court recently narrowed the right to attorney’s fees based on uncontroverted evidence. The Court held that compentent, uncontroverted, unchallenged evidence of attorney’s fees does not entitle a party to an award of attorney’s fees as a matter of law. Distinguishing its opinion in Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League, the Court held
The Texas Supreme Court recently held that a malpractice plaintiff may recover attorney’s fees incurred in a prior suit if those fees were proximately caused by counsel’s negligence. In this long and complex malpractice case, the plaintiff, NDR, sued Akin Gump for malpractice. The jury rendered a verdict for NDR and awarded damages, including damages
In Aquaplex, Inc. v. Rancho La Valencia, Inc., the Texas Supreme Court appears to have equated intent with causation in a fraud case. Aquaplex sued Rancho for fraud. Aquaplex asserted that it lost the sale of a piece of real property due to Rancho having filed a lis pendens on the property. On appeal
A recent Dallas Court of Appeals case, MRT, Inc. v. Vounckx, provides some insights on electronic discovery in Texas.
The case essentially involves two main entities: MRT, Inc. and Inter-University Micro-Electronics Center ("IMEC"), though several other related parties and entities were involved. Basically, IMEC through its agent, Roger Vounckx, persuaded MRT and the several related individuals and entities to invest in a new technology, PhotonLink, which purportedly provided faster and more efficient computer chip communication.
When the investment proved unsuccessful, MRT sued IMEC for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. During the litigation, MRT served IMEC with requests for production, but did not confer with IMEC beforehand to ascertain how it stored its information electronically. The requests sought any computer generated or stored information relevant to the lawsuit.
At depositions, MRT’s counsel learned that IMEC had some computer back up tapes it had not produced. These tapes were apparently used for retrieval if the data base became corrupted and not for archival preservation. Because IMEC delayed producing the tapes, MRT filed a motion to compel. IMEC objected to production because: (1) extracting information from the tapes was too burdensome given there was no indication relevant information was stored on the back up tapes, which would take hours to search; and (2) IMEC had destroyed the back up tapes related to the relevant time period after MRT had sued it.
The trial court denied MRT’s request for a continuance to review the backup tapes and it denied its spoliation motion. MRT lost at trial and appealed.
Did IMEC improperly withhold the backup tapes? Did IMEC spoliate evidence when it destroyed the backup tapes after MRT filed the lawsuit? Read the extended entry to learn what the court decided. Or if you would rather read the opinion, you can get it HERE.
Continue Reading Electronic Discovery: Duty to Preserve and Produce Electronic Documents