On Thursday, June 16, 2022, at 12:00pm, I have the pleasure of presenting a continuing education program to the Dallas Bar Appellate Law Section at the Arts District Mansion (2101 Ross).
I will be speaking on one of my favorite subjects, superseding judgments in Texas state courts. The presentation will focus on the basics
In the case of a judgment for recovery of an interest in real or personal property, the trial judge must determine the amount of security required to suspend enforcement of the judgment during appeal. Texas Appellate Rule 24.2(a)(2) requires that the amount must be at least
(A) the value of the property interest’s rent or
“A clerk has a ‘mandatory, ministerial duty’ to file all documents submitted for filing,” according to a recent opinion issued by the Dallas Court of Appeals. The court further held that the court, not the clerk, then has the power to decide the propriety of the filing.
The Supreme Court of Texas has recognized the discretion of a trial court judge to deny the State of Texas automatic supersedeas in cases involving non-monetary judgments pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.2(a)(3).
In In re State Board for Educator Certification, a schoolteacher challenged the State Board for Educator Certification’s revocation
The Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that addresses a couple of important issues for supersedeas practice, namely consolidated financial statements, burden of proof, and expert requirements.
In Hunter Buildings & Manufacturing L.P. v. MBI Global L.L.C., the trial court signed a judgment against six entities for joint-and-several liability. Three of
Little by little, appellate practitioners are getting answers to the many questions emanating from the supersedeas statute and law that came about as part of tort reform in 2003. The Texas Supreme Court‘s opinion in In re Nalle Plastics Family Limited Partnership holds that attorney’s fees are not compensatory damages that must be superseded.
The Texas Supreme Court recently set In Re Nalle Plastics Limited Partnership for oral argument indicating that it will decide whether attorney’s fees must be superseded pending appeal. The Court will resolve a split of authority that has developed in Texas courts of appeals as to whether attorney’s fees consitute "compensatory damages" under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.2 and
Appellate Rule 24.4(a) sets out the matters that an appellate court may review with respect to posting of supersedeas. Review of a post-judgment injunction order under Rule 24.2(d) is not among those items. Appellant Hydroscience Technologies, Inc. obtained review of an order granting a post-judgment injunction in Hydroscience Technologies, Inc. v. Hydroscience, Inc.
The
The El Paso Court of Appeals has become the most recent appellate court to weigh in on the issue of whether the judgment that is being appealed should be included on a balance sheet insofar as determining an appellant’s net worth for supersedeas bond purposes.
In Business Staffing Inc. v. Jackson Hot Oil Service, Jackson
The Dallas Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Chief Justice Carolyn Wright (left), recently held that attorney’s fees awarded in a judgment need not be superseded on appeal. In an opinion last year also by Chief Justice Wright, the Dallas Court held that attorney’s fees awarded in a breach of contract case were not "compensatory damages," and