The Dallas Court of Appeals recently discussed the difference between judicial errors and clerical errors and highlighted why it’s so very important to pay attention to the language in orders and judgments.
In In the Interest of N.E., D.E., & M.E., the trial court rendered a final judgment with a Mother Hubbard clause. The
This little news flash nearly escaped my attention. Governor Perry has appointed Associate Justice Terry Livingston to be the new Chief Justice of the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth. Chief Justice Livingston succeeds Chief Justice John Cayce, who stepped down late last year to return to private practice. The Governor’s news release may
Personal Jurisdiction challenges is one area of the law that I’ve found interesting since I took Dean Frank Newton’s conflicts of law class in law school. Recently there have been a number of personal jurisdiction opinions that have come out. I’ve summarized what I see as the highlights of some of those cases below:
Dallas Court of Appeals Justice Robert Fillmore will speak on the new rules and procedures governing electronic filing at the court of appeals on Thursday, April 15th at Noon at the Belo Mansion. Here’s an opportunity to get an hour’s worth of CLE, meet with one of the new Justices on the court, and learn about
A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about a Dallas Court of Appeals opinion holding that a temporary injunction that fails to set a trial date on the merits is a void injunction order. Now the San Antonio Court of Appeals gets into the act and reaffirms the strictness with which temporary injunctions are construed.
In Kotz
Appellate practitioners know that winning an appeal is not always the end of litigation. Sometimes it’s just a new beginning of disputes, as my blog entry regarding the Supreme Court’s opinion in the In re Columbia Medical Center case indicates. But other times, it really is supposed to be the end. What happens if the trial judge doesn’t see it that way?
Last month, I blogged about a case called In re Victor Enterprises, Inc., in which the Dallas Court of Appeals granted a petition for writ of mandamus against Dallas County Court at Law No. 1 after the judge of that court granted a petition for writ of mandamus without requesting a response from the Relator, Victor Enterprises. The court of appeals held that such an act was clear error and granted mandamus. Now there’s more to the story…Continue Reading Mandamus to prevent exercise of jurisdiction where there is none
The case I blog about today reminds us of why it’s so critical to pay attention to appellate judgments. As appellate practitioners, too often the first and only thing we study closely is the opinion, and errors in the appellate judgment go unnoticed. To understand what happened here, I will start with a bit of history of the case.
In August of 2008, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue, in which the Court "affirm[ed] the award of actual damages and gross negligence damages", but "reverse[ed] the portion of the judgment awarding loss of inheritance damages." The court’s majority opinion may be found at this link. Apparently, the judgment issued the same day simply stated that the portion of the court of appeals’ judgment awarding loss of inheritance damages is reversed and the remaining portions of the court of appeals’ judgment were affirmed. In short, the court rendered judgment and did not remand the case. The Court’s online docket shows Columbia filed a motion for rehearing, but there’s no indication what complaints were made.
After the court of appeals mandate issued, a dispute arose between the parties regarding the (now affirmed) award of gross negligence damages. Columbia argued that because the actual damages had been reduced, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.008(b) required reduction of the punitive damages as well.
In February of 2009, Columbia filed a motion with the Texas Supreme Court asking that the Court modify the mandate to reflect that punitive damages must be reduced (per statute). The court denied the motion over a dissent authored by Justice Wainright (joined by Justices Hecht and Brister). The dissent may be found at this link.
Practitioners will want to take note of this recent opinion from the Dallas Court of Appeals.
In a split decision in Davis v. Rupe, the court affirmed a sanctions order against an attorney based upon the trial court’s inherent power to sanction. Because the trial court did not issue findings of fact to support its order (an omission that the dissenting judge looked on with disfavor), the court had to consider all grounds on which the trial court might have based its decision. The majority recited three grounds, each of which provides some interesting dynamics.Continue Reading The inherent power to sanction…
The Dallas Court of Appeals held that a temporary injunction order that does not on its face set the cause for trial on the merits or fix the amount of security to be given is void and must be dissolved. In CLST Holdings, Inc. v. Red Oak Partners, LLC, the trial court granted Red
The Dallas Court of Appeals granted a petition for writ of mandamus in In re Hunter, and ordered the trial court to specify the reasons for ordering a new trial.
The court’s opinion relies upon the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Columbia Medical Center, 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2009), to support