Opinions & Judgments

Subscribe to Opinions & Judgments via RSS

The Dallas Court of Appeals recently had an opportunity to review and apply the mootness doctrine with respect to appeals and, in the process, expound on the rarely invoked exception to mootness known as "capable of repetition, yet evading review" (CORYER).  In this case, the Plaintiff sought a temporary injunction and declaratory judgment that Duncanville’s ordinance…

A court appointing a receiver has exclusive jurisdiction over property subject to the receivership. When does the court’s exclusive jurisdiction end? The court must either relinquish its jurisdiction or order the receiver to restore the property to those entitled to it.

Proper relinquishment of exclusive jurisdiction was the main issue of a recent San Antonio Court of Appeals case: Chimp Haven, Inc. v. Primarily Primates, Inc. You can read the opinion here.

Continue Reading Court Doesn’t Monkey Around With Exclusive Jurisdiction

 Void orders of a trial court may occur in a number of different circumstances.  The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals discusses one such circumstance in Silguero v. State.

The trial court dismissed the State’s action for forfeiture for want of prosecution and the State timely filed a motion to reinstate, but the motion was not verified.  More than 30 days after the dismissal, the trial court granted the motion to reinstate.  The trial court subsequently rendered a judgment of forfeiture and the Silgueros filed an appeal as well as a petition for writ of mandamus, each asserting that the trial court’s order of reinstatement was void.Continue Reading Challenging Void Orders and Motion to Reinstate

Dallas Court of Appeals.

Urban Television Network Corp. v. Creditor Liquidity Solutions, L.P., No. 05-07-01629-CV.

 

Westar Satellite Services, L.P. and Urban Television Network Corporation entered into a five year services agreement. The agreement contained a liquidated damages clause. After two years, Urban Television defaulted on its obligations and Westar sued to enforce the liquidated…

In probate proceedings it is not always clear when the court has rendered an appealable order.  Probate proceedings can produce multiple final, appealable orders.   The San Antonio Court of Appeals recently addressed one of those circumstances in In re Guardianship of Glasser. 

In Glasser, the Probate Court appointed litigation counsel to help an Attorney Ad Litem in a guardianship proceeding.  The court’s appointment order approved employment of litigation counsel and ordered that costs associated with the representation would be paid by the estate after being presented to the court and approved.  The court subsequently signed two orders approving fees and a final order at the conclusion of the proceeding approving fees and discharging the attorney ad litem and the litigation counsel.  The temporary guardian appealed the fee orders and the ad litem and litigation counsel sought dismissal, contending that the appeal was untimely because the court’s initial orders of appointment and approval of fees were final, appealable orders at the time they were signed. 

The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that the order of appointment simply set the stage for what followed and did not resolve a particular phase of the case.  The parties and the court understood and intended that there would be interim fee awards and that all awards were subject to a final hearing.  Accordingly, the interim orders were not final and appealable. Continue Reading Finality in Probate proceedings and Attorney Ad Litem Fees

The Amarillo Court of Appeals‘ opinion in Block v. Mora could be a law school exam question.   The opinion may be especially  important to jury charge junkies.  Here are the essential facts:

Plaintiff places a spare tire on top of four 5-gallon buckets of hydrolic oil in the bed of his pickup truck.  He does not secure the tire.  Later that day, Defendant pulls her vehicle in front of Plaintiff’s pickup truck, causing her to collide with the front end of his truck.  On impact, the spare tire is propelled forward through the truck’s rear window, stricking Plaintiff in the back of the neck and shoulder and causing him injury.  Defendant admits that she was driving her mother’s vehicle without permission, she had no driver’s license, and the accident was her fault.

Plaintiff sues Defendant and Defendant asserts the affirmative defense of contributory negligence.  The trial court submits the following jury question:

Did the negligence, if any, of those named below proximately cause the injuries, if any, to Defendant?
Answer “Yes” or “No” for each of the following:
a. Defendant _______________
b. Plaintiff _______________
 

The jury answers "Yes" for Plaintiff and "No" for Defendant and the trial court renders a take-nothing judgment.  On appeal, Plaintiff complains that his negligence should not have been submitted because there was no evidence he was contributorily negligent.Continue Reading Proportionate Responsibilty: What is contributory negligence?