Often trial judges sign orders that are not final either because they fail to dispose of all parties and issues before the court, or the written order fails to reflect the trial court’s intent that the order be a final, appealable judgment. That was the case in Hodo v. State, and the Amarillo Court
Opinions & Judgments
Tolling of Legal Malpractice Claim Survives Remand
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that the statute of limitations is tolled in a legal malpractice case throughout the underlying case including the appeal, remand, and any new trial, and subsequent appellate proceedings. In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for legal malpractice and the defendant moved for summary judgment based on limitations. The trial court granted…
Remedy for Judicial Foreclosure
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
It’s been a couple weeks since my last post–thanks to a bunch of deadlines. Here’s a little ditty I noticed discussing judicial foreclosures, and it got me to thinking up some interesting law-school type questions about the result.
The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment awarding judicial foreclosure in Brown v. EMC Mortgage …
Disqualification of Former Appeals Court Justice and her Law Firm
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The San Antonio Court of Appeals recently disqualified former court of appeals Justice Sarah Duncan and her law firm–Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP–from representing a Relator in an original proceeding pending before that court of appeals.
According to the facts in In re Brittingham, when she served on the Fourth Court…
Diamonds are a girl’s best friend
Posted on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
When Leland Dykes proposed to his girlfriend, Pepper Lee, he did so with a $26,000 diamond engagement ring in tow. He also bought a house for Pepper and put it in Pepper’s name. Leland protected his interest in the house through a Property Agreement with Pepper, but did not get a pre-nup covering that pricey ring. So, when…
Judicial versus clerical error
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently discussed the difference between judicial errors and clerical errors and highlighted why it’s so very important to pay attention to the language in orders and judgments.
In In the Interest of N.E., D.E., & M.E., the trial court rendered a final judgment with a Mother Hubbard clause. The…
Rule 11 not conclusive evidence of attorney’s authority to settle case
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Dallas Court of Appeals has held that a settlement agreement by Rule 11 did not support summary judgment because the client challenged her counsel’s authority to sign the Rule 11. In this case, a plaintiff settled a case by a Rule 11 Agreement. Later, she brought suit against the same party she had settled with…
Attorneys may be deposed as fact witnesses
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
In a brief memorandum opinion, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed that attorneys may be deposed as fact witnesses while counsel in the underlying litigation. Here, the trial court denied a party’s motion to compel the deposition of the opposing party’s lawyer. The court of appeals stated that "[t]he mere fact that a fact witness…
CPRC 33.004(e) not applicable to vicariously liable defendants
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Houston (First) Court of Appeals recently held that section 33.004(e) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code does revive claims against defendants whose liability is solely vicarious.
Section 33.004(e) allows plaintiffs to join as defendants those designated as responsible third parties notwithstanding the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs in this case filed suit against Wells Fargo…
Temporary injunctions must strictly follow the rules
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about a Dallas Court of Appeals opinion holding that a temporary injunction that fails to set a trial date on the merits is a void injunction order. Now the San Antonio Court of Appeals gets into the act and reaffirms the strictness with which temporary injunctions are construed.
In Kotz …