The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that a notice of past due findings of fact and conclusions of law filed prematurely is ineffective and does not preserve error. Here, the trial court issued a final judgment and the defendant timely requested findings and conclusions and past due findings. The trial court subsequently entered a
preservation of error
Conflicts in Summary Judgment Practice
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Summary Judgment
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…
The Fundamentals: Make A Record for Appeal
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The opinion in Gonzalez v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, reminds me of the philosophical riddle asking whether a tree that falls in the forest when nobody is there to hear it makes a sound.
In this appeal of a forcible detainer action, the appellant argued that Wells Fargo Bank had not controverted any of his evidence showing that he had a…
When does evidence of intent equate with causation?
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
In Aquaplex, Inc. v. Rancho La Valencia, Inc., the Texas Supreme Court appears to have equated intent with causation in a fraud case. Aquaplex sued Rancho for fraud. Aquaplex asserted that it lost the sale of a piece of real property due to Rancho having filed a lis pendens on the property. On appeal…
Dallas DWOP Redux
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
In the wake of the Dallas Court of Appeals’ en banc decision last week in Crown Asset Management, L.L.C. v. Loring, there’s a handful of other opinions addressing dismissals for want of prosecution using the same "aggressive docket management" procedures as in Crown. Continue Reading Dallas DWOP Redux
Dallas Court Reviews “Aggressive Docket Administration”
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The end of the courts of appeals’ fiscal year is upon us and as a result we are seeing a stream of opinions. One recent opinion that was of particular note is Crown Asset Management, L.L.C. v. Loring. It is noteworthy for at least two reasons: (1) it was issued by the Dallas Court of Appeals sitting en banc–a rare occurrence, and (2) its holdings are surprising, if not controversial–controversial enough to draw a three-justice dissent, another rarity This case may merit watching in the event it proceeds further. Because of its importance, all three of Reverse & Render’s bloggers have decided to review this case en banc, and therefore join the following summary.
Bottom line, the Court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing a case for want of prosecution four months after it was filed while the plaintiff was actively attempting to secure a default judgment. Readers may want to read the majority and dissenting opinions for themselves. We summarize and briefly discuss the three holdings below.Continue Reading Dallas Court Reviews “Aggressive Docket Administration”
Get Written Ruling on Objections to Summary Judgment Evidence
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Waco Court of Appeals recently held, once again, that parties should obtain written orders on objections to summary judgment evidence in order to preserve error for review on appeal. The Court went on to analyze when rulings are implicit and held that while rulings can be inferred, they can only be inferred from the record…
Notice of appeal not required to name all orders
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
Following rendition of a final, appealable judgment, does a notice of appeal have to name all preceeding interlocutory orders as a prerequisite to complaining of those orders? Apparently not. This has been a question of concern for many appellate practitioners and it’s a question that’s been percolating around in the courts of appeals. We now…