Paxton v. Commission for Lawyer DisciplineDallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-23-00218-CV (April 18, 2024) Justices Nowell (Opinion, linked here), Miskel (Dissent, linked here), and Kennedy Ken Carroll  More fallout from failed litigation regarding purported irregularities in the 2020 presidential election. A day after one panel of the Dallas Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed summary judgment rejecting the State Bar’s disciplinary charges against Sidney Powell—largely because of the Bar’s less-than-ideal briefing at trial and on appeal—another divided panel of that same court found it la ..read more

Greystar Development & Construction, LP  v. Williams Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-23-01168-CV (April 10, 2024) Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Breedlove (Opinion, linked here) Ken Carroll Williams secured a judgment holding three defendants jointly and severally liable for actual damages of more than $360 million. The three defendants posted one joint bond in the total amount of $25 million—the supersedeas “security” cap prescribed by TCPRC § 52.006(b)(2) and TRAP 24.2(a)(1)(B)—contending this was sufficient to suspend execution against all three, pending appeal. Pursuant to TRAP ..read more

   State Bar of Texas – Appellate Section  Nominations to the Texas Appellate Hall of Fame  A few years ago, CCSB co-founder and appellate legend Marvin Sloman was inducted into the Texas Appellate Hall of Fame. The recognition was richly deserved and a great honor for Marvin and the firm. Now it’s your opportunity to nominate a worthy practitioner to join Marvin and others in the Hall. The Appellate Section will honor new Hall of Fame inductees at a presentation and ceremony during this year’s Advanced Civil Appellate Practice course and Section meeting, schedul ..read more

Advantage Aviation Technologies, Inc. v. Axcess Aviation Maintenance Services, Inc. Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-23-00344-CV (December 27, 2023) Justices Molberg (Opinion, linked here), Pedersen III, and Smith Ken Carroll Axcess secured judgment against Advantage Aviation for breach of two contracts. Advantage challenged that judgment on appeal by arguing that it had no contracts with Axcess and that the contracts on which the judgment was based were between Axcess and a different party. Problem was, in the trial court Advantage had counterclaimed, unsuccessfully, for breach of the very s ..read more

Joy & Yoo Properties, Inc. v. Roeder Holdings, LLC Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-22-00699-CV (November 28, 2023) Justices Pedersen (Opinion, linked here), Garcia, and Kennedy Brent M. Rubin MDK owned a tract of land in Burleson, Texas. In 2009, Joy & Yoo Properties purchased one of the lots on the tract and agreed to construct improvements on the entire tract (not just its lot), including fire lanes, access drives, sewers, and water lines. But the property was never developed according to the agreement. In 2011, the bank foreclosed on MDK’s property, and the bank sold the property ..read more

Huffman Asset Management, LLC v. Colter Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-22-00779-CV (November 8, 2023) Justices Partida-Kipness (Opinion, linked here), Reichek, and Breedlove Brent M. Rubin Entities that do business in Texas, like corporations and limited liability companies, must “designate and continuously maintain” a registered agent and a registered office to be served with process. For around $100 annually, an entity can hire a company to serve as its registered agent and provide an address for its registered office. A business owner who faces ever-increasing expenses may be tempted to ..read more

U.S. Polyco, Inc. v. Texas Central Business Lines Corp. Supreme Court of Texas, No. 22-0901 (November 3, 2023) Per Curiam Opinion (linked here) Ken Carroll U.S. Polyco and Texas Central disputed the meaning of their land-improvement contract. The Supreme Court of Texas took that as an opportunity to reinforce its repeated admonitions that (1) a court’s “‘primary objective’ when construing private legal instruments … ‘is to ascertain and give effect to the parties’ intent as expressed in the instrument,’” and (2) “[i]n the usual case, the instrument alone will be deemed to express the intenti ..read more

Topletz v. Choice Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-22-00781-CV (August 22, 2023) Justices Carlyle (Opinion, linked here), Goldstein, and Kennedy Brent M. Rubin Topletz owns roughly 225 rental houses. The City of Dallas sued Topletz for various code violations. Several Topletz tenants intervened in 2016, asserting claims individually and on behalf of a class, alleging, among other things, that Topletz’s standard lease omitted certain language about tenant remedies required by Texas Property Code § 92.056(g) and improperly shifted certain repair duties from Topletz to the tenants in violation o ..read more

In re St. Mark’s School of Texas Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-23-00369-CV (May 3, 2023) Justices Partida-Kipness, Carlyle, and Garcia (Opinion, linked here) Ken Carroll This mandamus from a dispute about a high schooler’s AP statistics grade was marked by a number of procedural oddities—including the plaintiff high schooler, rather than his attorney, putatively signing the certificate of conference for the TRO. In directing the trial court to vacate its order, the Dallas Court of Appeals drove home a number of important reminders for those drafting proposed TROs: An order that is functi ..read more

Ferrer v. Almanza Supreme Court of Texas, No. 21-0513 (April 28, 2023) Opinion by Justice Huddle (linked here), Dissent by Justice Busby (here) Ken Carroll Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.063—entitled “Temporary Absence From State”—provides, “The absence from this state of a person against whom a cause of action may be maintained suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations for the period of the person’s absence.” But what does “absence” mean, under the statute? With apologies to Inigo Montoya, a majority of the Supreme Court of Texas “does not think it means what yo ..read more