I recently presented a continuing education seminar focusing on current issues in state summary judgment practice. As a result of that presentation, the Dallas Court of Appeals‘ holding in Bastida v. Abel’s Mobile Home Service, Inc., came to my attention. In that case, the trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of
Plaintiff can’t avoid attorney’s fees by simply dismissing claim
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that a plaintiff cannot avoid attorney’s fees by simply dismissing its claim prior to a decision on the merits. In this case, the plaintiff asserted several claims against the defendant, including a claim for violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act (Theft Act). Four days after the defendant
Dallas court limits discovey of expert’s finances
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion limiting the discoverability of an expert’s finances. In this personal injury case, the defendant hired an expert employed by a firm that derived ninety percent of its revenues “from the defense side of the docket.” Armed with this information, the plaintiff sought financial information regarding the
New Standard for Mandamus Relief?
The Dallas Court of Appeals has issued an Opinion in a mandamus proceeding that establishes a new standard for mandamus relief. In In re Pendragon Transportation, LLC, Pendragon complained of a trial court order that appointed a special master to attend depositions in the case and to make rulings on any objections, assertions of
Trial court’s denial of motion to designate RTP subject to mandamus
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held (again) that the improper denial of a motion for leave to designate a responsible third party under Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Codes is subject to review by mandamus. The case arose from a collision between a crane truck and a bus. Plaintiff was a
Dallas Court of Appeals issues rare en banc decision addressing summary judgment practice
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently addressed summary judgment practice in a rare en banc opinion. At issue was whether the defendants’ no-evidence motion for summary judgment adequately challenged the elements of plaintiffs’ claims by listing the elements and then stating that the plaintiffs had no evidence to support "one or more" of the elements
Admissions not binding on employment status
Attorneys should think twice before relying on an admission regarding a party’s employment status. The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that discovery admissions are not binding on legal issues, and do not raise a genuine issue of material fact on questions of law. In this case, the plaintiff sued the City of Dallas for
More Fun with Supersedeas Practice
The Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that addresses a couple of important issues for supersedeas practice, namely consolidated financial statements, burden of proof, and expert requirements.
In Hunter Buildings & Manufacturing L.P. v. MBI Global L.L.C., the trial court signed a judgment against six entities for joint-and-several liability. Three of
Incremental Clarity for Supersedeas: Attorney’s Fees
Little by little, appellate practitioners are getting answers to the many questions emanating from the supersedeas statute and law that came about as part of tort reform in 2003. The Texas Supreme Court‘s opinion in In re Nalle Plastics Family Limited Partnership holds that attorney’s fees are not compensatory damages that must be superseded.
Jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) gives federal courts jurisdiction of class actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million. The U.S. Supreme Court considered the question of whether a named class representative can avoid application of CAFA by stipulating that he will not seek damages that exceed $5 million in Standard Fire Ins.