Ever wonder what it takes to get an Appellant’s appeal dismissed?  The Dallas Court of Appeals has given us the answer in at least two circumstances, one involving defective briefing and one involving a failure to make arrangements to pay for an appellate record.

In Bridwell v. McMillin, the Court granted what appears to be a 60-day extension of time to file an Appellant’s Brief.  Later, the Court granted a second extension of time to file the Appellant’s Brief–this time for 30 days.  The Appellant filed his Appellant’s Brief 9 days early, but it contained a number of briefing deficiencies.  The Court ordered the Appellant to correct the briefing deficiencies within 10 days or his appeal would be dismissed.  By letter, the Appellant requested that the Court treat his defective brief as his amended brief–in effect refusing to correct the deficiencies.  In response, the Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with the Court’s order.  The Court granted the motion to dismiss.  The Court’s Memorandum Opinion in Bridwell can be found at this link.Continue Reading Appellate Dismissals in Dallas

In a longstanding dispute over which agency has the authority to regulate engineers, the Austin Court of Appeals recently held that the Texas Society of Professional Engineers (Society) lacked standing to bring suit against the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners (Board) on behalf of its members because it failed to meet the test for associational standing. 

A divided panel of the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that a dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata even if the trial court erred by including the phrase "with prejudice" in the dismissal order.  The majority followed Amarillo precedent while the dissent called for it to be overruled.  Because the Amarillo