“mandamus” “default judgment” “mandate”
Continue Reading Failure to Comply with an Appellate Mandate
Failure to Announce for Trial May Result in Dismissal
Can the failure to announce ready for trial be a basis for dismissal of the suit? The answer is apparently "yes."
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a allows a court to dismiss a case for want of prosecution for failure of any party seeking affirmative relief to appear for any hearing or trial. In
Appellate CLE Opportunity: Appellate Mediation
The Dallas Bar Association Appellate Law Section will have its monthly luncheon on Thursday, February 16, 2012, at noon at the Belo Mansion. The topic is "Positioning Your Appeal for Successful Mediation." Speakers include Vikram Chandhok (Fifth Circuit Conference Attorney), David Keltner (former justice on the Fort Worth Court of Appeals), and Mark Whittington
When does “expedite” mean “eliminate”?
The Texas Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee will be meeting Friday, January 27th and Saturday, January 28th to discuss–among other things–the proposal that the Court’s task force has assembled to implement House Bill 274. In relevant part, House Bill 274 requires the Court to adopt rules for a "prompt, efficient, and cost-effective resolution of civil actions" for
Temporary injunction rules vs. Arbitration: which one is superior?
The Texas arbitration statutes contemplate that a trial court has jurisdiction to issue an injunction in support of an arbitration. So what happens if the trial court issues a temporary injunction but the form of the injunction does not (and cannot) comply with Rule 683? According to the Dallas Court of Appeals, Rule 683 takes a
Dominant Jurisdiction and Mandamus Relief
Since 1985, the test for whether a writ of mandamus will issue in connection with a trial court’s refusal to grant a plea in abatement under the doctrine of dominant jurisdiction has required proof of an active interference by one court with the jurisdiction of another court. The loosening of mandamus standards does not appear
Vicarious liability under Chapter 33
The Dallas Court of Appeals has explained how to submit jury questions for negligence of employees for whose conduct employers may be held vicariously liable.
In Janga v. Colombrito, two defendant doctors appealed an adverse jury verdict and complained that the trial court had not submitted the liability of two nurses as part of
Reverse supersedeas can’t deny effective appeal
The Dallas Court of Appeals has held that Appellate Rule 24.3(a)(3) cannot be invoked to allow an Appellee to provide a "reverse supersedeas bond" when doing so denies an Appellant its appeal.
In Hydroscience Technologies Inc. v. Hydroscience Inc., Hydroscience, Inc. obtained a declaratory judgment declaring that it owned shares of preferred stock in
No Mandamus against a JP
The Amarillo Court of Appeals dismissed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus against a justice of the peace because a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a justice of the peace.
In In re Smith, the relators sought a writ of mandamus against a justice of
Is “Man’s Best Friend” Mere Property, or of Special Value
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals has held that a party may recover for the loss of companionship or sentimental value of a dog.
In Medlen v. Strickland, the Medlens’ dog escaped and was picked up by animal control. The animal shelter represented to the Medlens that they would put a "hold" on the