What is the legal effect of a provision voiding a contract? This was the issue in the Fourth Court of Appeals case Mr. W. Fireworks Inc. v. Ozuna.
In the case, Mr. W, between September of 2002 and February of 2003, contracted for the exclusive right to sell firework on the land of three different
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that local rules that are inconsistent with the TRCP are not enforceable. The case involved a summary judgment response that was supposedly filed and served seven days prior to the summary judgment hearing. The trial court struck the response for failure to comply with Dallas Local Rule 2.05. Local Rule 2.05 requires that documents relating to matters set within seven days of filing must be served in a manner to ensure receipt by the opposing party the same day the papers are filed. The opinion does not mention how the document was filed or served. Relying on TRCP 3a, the court of appeals held that Local Rule 2.05 was not enforceable to the extent it mandates a different "type of service than that prescribed by rule 21a."
Does Local Rule 2.05 really require a "different type of service"? It seems to do no more than ensure that in the event a party hand delivers a response or reply to the court, it will deliver the documents to its opponent in a similar manner thus avoiding the situation in which the court receives a document and has time to review it prior to the hearing but the opposing party does not. I thought the Texas Supreme Court reviewed and approved local rules? If so, why? The court’s opinion in Esty v. Beal Bank S.S.B. can be found at this link. Other local rules may be affected as discussed below. Continue Reading Are Some Local Rules in Jeopardy?
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
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”
Yet another summary judgment gone wrong.
Sundance Resources, Inc. v. Ole Brook Energy Services, Inc. reminds me of my sixth grade math teacher; she used to deduct points from tests when students failed to show their work. In this case, the attorneys concluded they were entitled to summary judgment but they didn’t show
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
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.
Ever heard of the continuing contract doctrine? It’s the sister of the continuing tort doctrine. Both operate as an exception to the statute of limitations that allows a claimant to recover for contract breaches that occur after the accrual date.
But can the continuing contract doctrine apply to contracts other than an installment contract?
This issue was before
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that undefined terms in jury charges must be given their "commonly understood meaning." The Court noted that neither party objected to the lack of a definition. As a result, the Court held that there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict based on the common understanding
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed that orders denying a motion to dissolve a prejudgment writ of garnishment are interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal. The Court’s memorandum opinion in MRI Country Bend Invest. Fund, L.P. v. Capitol Painting & Construction, Inc. dismissing the interlocutory appeal can be found here.
If you