Reverse and Render : Texas Appellate Lawyer & Attorney : Cowles & Thompson Law Firm : Court of Appeals, Texas Supreme Court

The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that a default judgment containing a slightly different name than that contained in the citation constitutes error on the face of the record sufficient to justify reversal on restricted appeal.  In this appeal, the court was faced with a citation and return of service for "Rone Engineers, Ltd." and a deafult judgment against "Rone Engineering Service, Ltd."  The court stated that [t]he problem in this case is that the name of the defendant identified in the default judgment is different that the name of the defendant identified on the return if service."  The court of appeals also rejected appellee's argument that this was a case of misnomer.  The court has consistently required "strict compliance with the rules governing service of process."  As this case, and my prior post on this subject indicate, when the Dallas court says strict, it means it.  The court's opinion in Rone Engineering Service, Ltd. v. Culberson can be found at this link. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you've got a pending interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction, or if you are considering filing such an appeal, you will want to pay attention to this.

The Dallas Court of Appeals has held that interlocutory appeals of temporary injunctions should be dismissed because they seek advisory opinions.  In Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board v. Association of Taxicab Operators, USA, the Association of Taxicab Operators sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief against the Airport Board's new airport policy favoring taxicabs with dedicated CNG-powered engines.  After the trial court granted a temporary injunction, the Airport Board appealed.  Notably, at the oral argument, the court of appeals panel asked about the status of the trial on the permanent injunction and the parties advised the court that they had agreed to continue the case because of the pendency of the appeal of the temporary injunction.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Thursday, January 20, 2011, at Noon, David Horan of the Jones Day law firm, will speak at the Belo Mansion on the subject of "Gould v. U. S.: How A Routine Pro Bono Criminal Appeal Resulted in a Trip to the Supreme Court."  This CLE is hosted by the Dallas Bar Association's Appellate Law Section.  Attendance is good for one hour of CLE credit. 
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Where can you go to explore the cultures of other countries, visit with Mickey and Minnie, ride stomach-turning rides AND get Appellate CLE credits?  The DRI's Appellate Advocacy Seminar on March 10-11, 2011, in Orlando, Florida, of course.  The organizers have put together a live moot court demonstration with feedback from a panel of real judges.  Other topics include a look into the future of appellate law, ethical issues with overzealous advocates, brief writing, and tips from court clerks and staff.  The brochure for the seminar may be found here.  Other registration information may be found here.

And during your downtime, or on an extended stay, consider visiting the Magic Kingdom, EPCOT Center, or Universal Studios.  Or bring the kids and keep them entertained while you are racking up some CLE credit.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At its December meeting, the Dallas Bar Association's Appellate Law Section elected a slate of officers for the year 2011.  Congratulations goes to the following persons who were elected upon unanimous voice vote:

     Ben Mesches: Chair

     Jeremy Martin: Vice-chair

     Byron Henry: Secretary

     Michelle Robberson: Treasurer

Congratulations should also go to Rey Rodriguez for a fine job in 2010 as chair of the section.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The City of Dallas challenged the standing of the Dallas Morning News to sue for mandamus relief under the Texas Open Records Act because two Morning News reporters had made the original requests for public information, and not the Morning News itself.  Noting that a "requestor" can be the Morning News acting through its agents, the Dallas Court of Appeals rejected the City's argument and concluded that the evidence showed that the requestors made their requests in the course and scope of their position as reporters for the Morning News.

Addressing a separate issue, the court of appeals held that the trial court should have sustained the City's plea to the jurisdiction as to the Morning News' request for declaratory relief.  Because the Morning News' petition for writ of mandamus already encompassed the issues that were part of its request for declaratory relief, the court of appeals held that declaratory relief was not available.

Finally, the appellate court sustained an award of attorney's fees to the Morning News because the Morning News had already substantially prevailed (in a prior appeal) on its request for relief under the Open Records Act.

The court's opinion in City of Dallas v. Dallas Morning News may be found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link