For the week of May 9, 2011, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued twelve opinions in civil cases. Six of these dispose of a case without a detailed discussion of the merits (e.g., dismissing a case for want of prosecution, dismissing a case for mootness, dismissing a case pursuant to settlement). The remaining six cases are as follows:
Beltran v. Brookshire Grocery Co. (05-09-01548-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing whether jury findings irreconcilably conflict; (2) rule that appellate court may not strike down jury answers on the basis of conflict if there is any reasonable basis on which they can be reconciled; (3) rule that, absent a timely objection to a fatal conflict in jury’s answers, any complaint regarding such conflict is waived; (4) rule that, if a party improperly harmonizes or reconciles jury’s findings, a party can raise that issue on appeal without objecting to the jury’s verdict before the jury is discharged; (5) rule that a trial court may disregard a jury finding only if it is unsupported by evidence or if the issue is immaterial; and (6) rule that a properly submitted jury question can be rendered immaterial by other findings.
Cypress Tex. Lloyd’s Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (05-09-00753-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing challenges to trial court’s ruling on motions for JNOV.
Lawler v. DiGiuseppe (05-09-01468-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that, when a party tries a case on alternative theories of recovery and a jury returns favorable findings on two or more theories, the party has a right to judgment on the theory entitling him to the greatest relief; and (2) rule that trial court’s judgment must conform t the pleadings, the nature of the case proved, and the verdict.
Gamma Group, Inc. v. Home State County Mut. Ins. Co. (05-10-00070-CV) – Recites well-established standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment.
Hidalgo v. Hidalgo (05-06-00966-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s ruling in a suit to enforce a divorce decree; (2) standard for reviewing trial court’s construction of an unambiguous contract; (3) rule that an unambiguous contract will be enforced as written regardless of whether one or more of the parties contracted foolishly; (4) rule that courts are not authorized to rewrite agreements by inserting additional terms, definitions, or provisions that the parties could have included themselves but did not; and (5) rule that courts cannot ignore express terms of a contract.
Neary v. Mikob Props., Inc. (05-09-01175-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; and (2) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment.