Insight & Commentary on Texas Appellate Law
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reiterated the pleading standards applicable in federal court for securities fraud and for common-law fraud in Flaherty & Crimrine Preferred Income Fund Inc. v. TXU Corp.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires a pleader to state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or…
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…
This week the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in connection with a Petition for Leave to Appeal solely to remind district judges (and presumably practitioners) to demonstrate that the standards governing interlocutory appeals under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) have been met.
Section 1292(b) requires that a district court should state when…
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
Apparently the Dallas Court of Appeals is Pro-choice. At least when it comes to a Plaintiff’s choice of forums.
In Signature Management Team, LLC v. Quixtar, Inc., the Dallas Court of Appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed a case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens even though some substantive and probative evidence existed to support the court’s decision.Continue Reading Dallas Court of Appeals Favors Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum
The simple answer is yes, they do. See Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 162.
But the defendant’s pleading must allege a cause of action independent of the plaintiff’s claims on which the defendant can recover. If a defendant fails to do so, then the plaintiff has an absolute right to a non-suit of all claims, as the Dallas Court of Appeals demonstrated in In re Metropolitan Lloyds Insurance Company of Texas.Continue Reading Do counterclaims survive when a plaintiff non-suits?
The Tyler Court of Appeals recently held that evidence of medical expenses billed by medical providers is legally insufficient evidence of the amount of expenses "actually paid or incurred." Plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries sustained in an auto accident. Prior to trial, the plaintiff filed a motion to exclude any evidence of reductions, insurance…
The Houston Court of Appeals (14th) recently held that a party may not avoid exclusion of an undisclosed expert by simply calling the witness to rebut previous testimony. Appellee failed to timely disclose an expert. The trial court allowed the expert to testify at trial over appellant’s objection. On appeal, the appellant argued that the…
