The Appellate Law and Family Law Sections of the Dallas Bar Association are hosting a luncheon to honor outgoing Fifth District Court of Appeals Chief Justice Linda Thomas. The luncheon will be Wednesday, November 4, 2009, at Noon at the Belo Mansion. Those desiring to attend should RSVP to Alicia Hernandez at the Dallas Bar
Discovery of Net Worth Continues to Simmer
At least since the Texas Supreme Court’s 1994 opinion in Transportation Insurance Company v. Moriel, questions of the right to discovery of a defendant’s net worth information, the definition of "net worth", and the scope of information relating to net worth have been simmering in the district courts and in the courts of appeals. The latest opinion on the subject has been issued by the Fourteenth District Court of Appeals and the concurring opinion makes case for why it’s time for the Texas Supreme Court to address these thorny issues. The majority’s opinion in In re Jacobs may be found here. The concurring opinion may be found here.Continue Reading Discovery of Net Worth Continues to Simmer
Probate court jurisdiction and void judgments
The Amarillo Court of Appeals recently concluded that when a probate proceeding is filed in a court that does not have jurisdiction, a judgment from the court is void, rather than voidable. In Winfield v. Pietsch, Dale Winfield, Gloria Johnson, and James Winfield filed suit in district court in Randall County seeking to challenge
Discovery in challenges to the exercise of personal jurisdiction
The Houston First District Court of Appeals has held that a trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiffs discovery of jurisdictional facts pertaining to the defendants’ personal appearance. In Lamar v. Poncon, John and Nanci Lamar sued Eric Poncon, Morgan’s Rock Hacienda, and Ecolodge for negligence in causing injuries arising out of
Targeting Mandamus
The Amarillo Court of Appeals recently issue an opinion in In re Lagaite, in which the Court dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. The petitioner complained of medical treatment he received while incarcerated in a Texas prison and evidently named the medical doctor as the respondent. Noting that Texas
Texas Law Review needs your input
Dallas DWOP Redux
In the wake of the Dallas Court of Appeals’ en banc decision last week in Crown Asset Management, L.L.C. v. Loring, there’s a handful of other opinions addressing dismissals for want of prosecution using the same "aggressive docket management" procedures as in Crown. Continue Reading Dallas DWOP Redux
Dallas Court Reviews “Aggressive Docket Administration”
The end of the courts of appeals’ fiscal year is upon us and as a result we are seeing a stream of opinions. One recent opinion that was of particular note is Crown Asset Management, L.L.C. v. Loring. It is noteworthy for at least two reasons: (1) it was issued by the Dallas Court of Appeals sitting en banc–a rare occurrence, and (2) its holdings are surprising, if not controversial–controversial enough to draw a three-justice dissent, another rarity This case may merit watching in the event it proceeds further. Because of its importance, all three of Reverse & Render’s bloggers have decided to review this case en banc, and therefore join the following summary.
Bottom line, the Court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing a case for want of prosecution four months after it was filed while the plaintiff was actively attempting to secure a default judgment. Readers may want to read the majority and dissenting opinions for themselves. We summarize and briefly discuss the three holdings below.Continue Reading Dallas Court Reviews “Aggressive Docket Administration”
Vexatious litigants may include those represented by counsel
If a plaintiff is represented by counsel when filing suit, is the plaintiff immune from application of the vexatious litigant statutes? According to the Dallas Court of Appeals, the answer is "no."
In Drake v. Andrews, the trial court declared Drake a vexatious litigant under Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice
A trap for the unwary: service by fax
Civil Procedure Rule 21a allows a party to add three (3) days to any prescribed response period when service of the initial document is accomplished by mail or fax. But not necessarily, according to the El Paso Court of Appeals–at least not when another method of service is also used.