The Dallas Court of Appeals recently weighed in (again?) on whether a trial court’s erroneous ruling regarding designation of a responsible third party is subject to mandamus. In this case, the trial court denied relator’s motion to designate a responsible third party. The trial court did not allow relator to replead. A divided panel held
Attorney disqualification redux
The San Antonio Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed that "[t]he fact that a lawyer serves as both an advocate and a witness does not, standing alone, compel disqualification." Here, the court also restated the well-settled rule that disqualification of counsel is subject to mandamus. The court reiterated that Rule 3.08 only requires disqualification if the
Justice Don Willett to visit North Texas
Justice Don Willett will speak to the Dallas Bar Appellate Section at noon on Thursday, January 19, 2012 at the Belo Mansion. He will speak on "Tips and Preferences on Practicing Before the Court." One hour of CLE is available.
Justice Willett will also speak to the Collin County Bar Association at its monthly lunch meeting at noon on Friday
Don’t Mess With Texas (Court of Appeals’ Jurisdiction)
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals recently held that it was error for a trial court to order that an attorney not file a notice of appeal until his client directed him to do so. After trial, Relator’s counsel sought to have appellate counsel substiuted in for any possible appeal. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory
Split of Authority Regarding Superseding Attorney’s Fees On Appeal
The Dallas Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Chief Justice Carolyn Wright (left), recently held that attorney’s fees awarded in a judgment need not be superseded on appeal. In an opinion last year also by Chief Justice Wright, the Dallas Court held that attorney’s fees awarded in a breach of contract case were not "compensatory damages," and
Get Your Damages On The Record
The Dallas Court of Appeals has held that the lack of a reporter’s record from a trial on unliquidated damages requires reversal of the judgment. In this case, the defendant defaulted and a trial was held on unliquidated damages. No court reporter was present. The trial court entered judgment for plaintiff awarding $1.3 million in
News Flash: Service Rules Require Strict Compliance
The Dallas Court of Appeals has, once again, confirmed that "strict compliance" with rules governing service of process is required. See my prior posts on the subject here and here. In this case, the district clerk served an out-of-state defendant via certified mail, return receipt requested. But while the return of service bore the district clerk’s stamp
11-1 Verdict on Liability Bars Recovery of Exemplary Damages
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that a jury verdict of 11-1 on negligence bars recovery of exemplary damages based on gross negligence. In this case, the jury returned a verdict against the defendant for negligence by a vote of 11 to 1. Ignoring the predicate instruction to only answer the gross negligence question on an
Attorney as witness does not compel disqualification
The San Antonio Court of Appeals reaffirmed that the fact that an attorney for one of the parties may also be a witness does not require disqualification under Rule 3.08 of the Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. In this case, counsel for the relator was a potential witness with knowledge of some arguably relevant facts. The
Attorney’s Fees Double Play
The San Antonio Court of Appeals recently decided two cases dealing with recovery of attorney’s fees for breach of contract. The court first held that a party who brings an action to enforce a Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) is not entitled to attorney’s fees under Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code