Supersedeas aficionados will want to take a look at the Austin Court of Appeals‘ opinion in Shook v. Walden. The opinion gives a very thorough treatment of the parties’ arguments and analysis of the law relating to elements of damages that must be superseded. To summarize, the court of appeals makes the following
Mike Northrup
Mike Northrup is the chair of the appellate practice group at Cowles & Thompson, P.C. He is Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, and is a former Chair of the Appellate Law Section of the Dallas Bar Association. He is also a former briefing attorney for the Supreme Court of Texas.
Practice Areas
- Civil Appeals
- Labor and Employment Law
- Insurance Law
- Municipal Law
Professional Associations
- Dallas Bar Association, Appellate Law Section
- Defense Research Institute
- College of the State Bar of Texas
- State Bar of Texas, Appellate Section
- Texas Aggie Bar Association
Education
- JD, Texas Tech University School of Law (1988)
- B.S., (Political Science), Texas A&M University (1985)
Bar Admissions
- State Bar of Texas
- United States Supreme Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- United States District Court, Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of Texas
Due Process requires an opportunity to be heard
The Dallas Court of Appeals has held that "due process requires that a party be given the opportunity to present its arguments to a court before the court makes a ruling." (citing TRAP 52.4).
In In re Victor Enterprises, Inc., the trial court (Dallas County Court at Law No. 1) granted a petition for…
Attorney’s Fees for Travel Time are Recoverable
Attorney’s Fees for travel time are recoverable under Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, according to the San Antonio Court of Appeals. In Wilkerson v. Atascosa Wildlife Supply, Atascosa sought recovery of attorney’s fees inclusive of $5,500 for travel time. Atascosa offered evidence that the travel time was reasonable…
Voidness, Unenforceability, or Unconscionability of Contract is an Affirmative Defense
“Rule 94” “affirmative defense” “unconscionability” “void”…
Continue Reading Voidness, Unenforceability, or Unconscionability of Contract is an Affirmative Defense
Appellate CLE Opportunity
The Appellate Law Section of the Dallas Bar Association will have its final meeting of the year on Thursday, December 17th, at noon at the Belo Mansion. Kirsten M. Castañeda of Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell will present an United States Supreme Court Update. Also, as this is the annual business meeting, election of officers…
New Procedure Adopted for Electronic Submissions
The Texas Supreme Court has adopted new procedures relating to the submission of electronic copies of briefs submitted to that court. The procedures address matters such as file names, the manner of submitting electronic copies, and contents of the electronic copies. For complete details, follow this link.
Judicial Appointments by the Governor
Governor Perry has made two recent appointments to our intermediate appellate courts.
Today, he appointed Lana Myers to the Fifth District Court of Appeals at Dallas. Myers has served as an administrative judge for the Dallas County Criminal Criminal courts. Myers will fill the place on the court that opened up when Justice Carolyn…
Verifications versus affidavits
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…
Jurisdictional Discovery: Don’t Jump the Gun on Depositions!
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. …
When does evidence of intent equate with causation?
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…
