The Dallas Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion limiting the discoverability of an expert’s finances. In this personal injury case, the defendant hired an expert employed by a firm that derived ninety percent of its revenues “from the defense side of the docket.” Armed with this information, the plaintiff sought financial information regarding the
Byron Henry
Trial court’s denial of motion to designate RTP subject to mandamus
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held (again) that the improper denial of a motion for leave to designate a responsible third party under Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Codes is subject to review by mandamus. The case arose from a collision between a crane truck and a bus. Plaintiff was a…
Dallas Court of Appeals issues rare en banc decision addressing summary judgment practice
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently addressed summary judgment practice in a rare en banc opinion. At issue was whether the defendants’ no-evidence motion for summary judgment adequately challenged the elements of plaintiffs’ claims by listing the elements and then stating that the plaintiffs had no evidence to support "one or more" of the elements…
Admissions not binding on employment status
Attorneys should think twice before relying on an admission regarding a party’s employment status. The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that discovery admissions are not binding on legal issues, and do not raise a genuine issue of material fact on questions of law. In this case, the plaintiff sued the City of Dallas for…
Appeal dismissed for violating trial court’s orders
The El Paso Court of Appeals recently dismissed an appeal because the appellant failed to comply with a trial court’s post-judgment orders. Here, a final judgment was entered against the appellant and the appellant did not pay the judgment or file a supersedeas bond. The appellee sought post-judgment discovery. The appellant failed to answer the…
No Presentment, No Attorney’s Fees
The Dallas Court of Appeals reaffirmed the requirement that a claim be presented to the opposing party in order to recover attorney’s fees under Chapter 38 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Here, the party seeking fees argued that the offers exchanged at mediation constituted presentment for purposes of CPRC Section 38.002. The Court…
News flash — Attorney’s fees are not damages
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently confirmed that attorney’s fees are not economic damages. In this case, a party objected to testimony regarding attorney’s fees because the opposing party failed to include the attorney’s fees information in its response to a TRCP194.2(d) request to disclosure the amount and method of calculating economic damages. The court…
Justice Fillmore to speak to Collin County Bar
Justice Bob Fillmore will speak to the Collin County Bar Association at noon on Friday, October 19th at the Center for American and International Law in Plano. Justice Fillmore will speak on "Practice Tips in the Fifth Court of Appeals." Lunch is provided free to members who RSVP to admin@collincountybar.com.
Justice Fillmore was appointed by…
Texas Supreme Court to decide whether attorney’s fees must be superseded pending appeal
The Texas Supreme Court recently set In Re Nalle Plastics Limited Partnership for oral argument indicating that it will decide whether attorney’s fees must be superseded pending appeal. The Court will resolve a split of authority that has developed in Texas courts of appeals as to whether attorney’s fees consitute "compensatory damages" under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.2 and…
Attorneys’ fees must be reasonable under Rule 1.04
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently decided an interesting issue involving whether evidence that attorney’s fees are reasonable under the Arthur Anderson v. Perry factors is required in a breach of contract case between attorney and former client. Here, a law firm brought suit against its former client for non-payment of fees pursuant to a contract…