The Dallas Court of Appeals held that a pro se letter from an Illinois resident denying liability and requesting an extension of time to retain counsel and file a "complete answer" waived the defendant’s subsequent special appearance. The defendant argued that the letter did not consitute an answer. The court held that the letter constituted an answer.
Opinions & Judgments
Suit to Remove Lis Pendens Involves Interest In Land
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments, Venue
In a case involving application of the mandatory venue provision in section 15.011 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a suit to remove a lis pendens constitutes an action to quiet title. The Court, therefore, held that "[o]nce it is demonstrated that the court’s judgment would have…
Society of Engineers Lacks Standing to Sue State Architecture Board
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
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. …
Notice of Service After Case Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
By David Oliveros on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
A plaintiff sued a defendant for breach of contract. Instead of serving the defendant, the plaintiff served the Secretary of State. As the time for answering lapsed, the trial court sent notice of dismissal to the parties (according to Texas Rule 165a ) warning them of dismissal if no answer was filed by a specified deadline.…
Specific performance, Deemed findings, and Alternative lesser relief
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
There are three holdings in DiGiuseppe v.Lawler that are noteworthy. First, the Texas Supreme Court, reaffirms the principle that a party who obtains a favorable judgment need not file a separate notice of appeal to preserve its right to judgment on a lesser alternate ground of recovery in the event an appellate court reverses the trial…
No-Evidence MSJ Need Only Reference Challenged Element
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments, Summary Judgment
The Texarkana Court of Appeals held that a no-evidence motion for summary judgment need only identify the challenged element in order to comply with Rule 166a(i). Plaintiff argued that the motion must list all of the elements and identify the challenged element(s). The court of appeals disagreed and held the motion sufficient if it "merely reference[s] the element…
“With Prejudice” Means What It Says
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
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…
Tax Returns Not Relevant to Net Worth
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Discovery, Opinions & Judgments
In this mandamus action, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that federal tax returns are not relevant or material to the issue of the defendant’s net worth. While the court of appeals held that a plaintiff seeking exemplary damages need not make a prima facie showing of entitlement of exemplary damages in order to obtain discovery on…
Nonsuit Does Not Restart 120-day Deadline Under Chapter 74
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Houston (First) Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff cannot restart the clock on the 120-day deadline to serve an expert report pursuant to Chapter 74. The plaintiff nonsuited its case prior to the expiration of the deadline. The plaintiff refiled the suit and filed an expert report within 120-days of the new filing. Relying on a prior…
Motions for Summary Judgment and the Specificity Requirement
By David Oliveros on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The defendant moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claims based on the statute of limitations. To show the accrual date, the defendant attached several documents to his motion. But the defendant’s motion did not specifically identify where the evidence was in those documents. Did this meet the summary judgment requirement that a party must specifically identify its…