Opinions & Judgments

Subscribe to Opinions & Judgments via RSS

The more time you spend studying City of Dallas v. Dallas Morning News, the more I.Q. points you lose.  This case may be more important for what it doesn’t answer than for what you hope it will answer. 

The primary issue in this appeal is whether e-mails that are sent to and from private e-mail addresses of the Mayor and other city officials and which involve matters of official public business, are public information and subject to the Texas Open Records Act.Continue Reading Open Records Act and its Application to E-mail

All those "whereas" clauses in congressional resolutions amount to nothing, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

In 1993, the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution expressing its deep regret to native Hawaiians insofar as the United States’ overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.  Contained within the resolution was an apology to the Hawaiian people, which acknowledged…

The Beaumont Court of Appeals has held that the minimum amount in controversy necessary to invoke a district court’s jurisdiction is $201.00.

In Acreman v. Sharp, the trial court dismissed Plaintiff Acreman’s claims against an employee of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice because Acreman’s petition asserted that the value of the property he was complaining of was $400.00.  The trial court concluded that the minimum amount in controversy to invoke a district court’s jurisdiction must exceed $500.00.  Acreman appealed.

Continue Reading District Court Jurisdiction: Split of Authority

The Beaumont Court of Appeals has held that a contractual waiver of jury clause does not extend to non-contractual claims brought against non-signatory joint tortfeasors or alleged conspirators.

In In re Wild Oats Markets, Inc., Kuykendahl-WP Retail, L.L.P. ("Kuykendahl") had a lease agreement with Wild Oats Markets, Inc., which contained a contractual waiver-of-jury-trial clause. …

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates v. Mattel  "restricts the grounds for vacatur" of an arbitration award and, thus, "manifest disregard for the law is no longer an indepdendent ground for vacating arbitration awards under the FAA."  Consequently…

I’ve wanted to write something about Boenig v. Starnair, Inc. since I first read it because I believe the analysis is incorrect. 

This case involves the intersection of the responsible third party statute and a statute of repose.

Boenig sued contractor Pulte in November 2005 for injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell through the attic floor of a home Pulte built.  On July 19, 2007, Pulte filed a motion for leave to designate Starnair as a responsible third party.  Starnair was a subcontractor that performed the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning installation in the home.  On August 23, 2007, Boenig filed her fourth amended petition in which she joined Starnair as a defendant.

Starnair moved for summary judgment in reliance upon the ten-year statute of repose set out in Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.009.  The trial court granted the motion and Boenig appealed.Continue Reading Responsible Third Party Statute and Statutes of Repose

The Dallas Court of Appeals‘ opinion in In re Berry leaves more questions than answers.

This is an appeal from probate court action in which Sue Berry brought suit against Comerica, H&R Block, Washington Mutual Bank and the executrix of Eugene Berry’s estate for wrongful payment of checks.  Comerica filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the claims against it were barred because Ms. Berry did not report the unauthorized signatures within one year after the statement or items were made available to her, as required by Section 4.406(f) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.  The trial court granted Comerica’s motion for summary judgment and all other claims were dismissed without prejudice.  Ms. Berry appealed the summary judgment.Continue Reading Wrongful Payment of Checks

Can the non-movant in a summary judgment context use the movant’s evidence (attached to support a traditional motion for summary judgment) to challenge no-evidence grounds for summary judgment on appeal?

According to the El Paso Court of Appeals, the answer is "no." 

Continue Reading Combining No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment with Traditional Motions