NO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS. LA PROVIDENCIA FOOD PRODUCTS, CO. and ROBERTO MEZA, Individually, Appellants
|
|
- Preston Foster
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS LA PROVIDENCIA FOOD PRODUCTS, CO. and ROBERTO MEZA, Individually, Appellants V. SUPER PLAZA STORES, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 116 th Judicial District Court, Dallas, Texas, the Honorable Bruce Priddy, Presiding REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS Rosa R. Orenstein State Bar No William O. Holston, Jr., P.C. William O. Holston, Jr. State BarNo Carol Lynn Wolfram, Of Counsel State Bar No Nathan M. Nichols State Bar No Oral Argument Requested SULLIVAN & HOLSTON a Partnership of Professional Corporations 4131 N. Central Expy. Suite 980 Dallas, Texas (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS....ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES... :....iii REPLY ISSUES PRESENTED... 2 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES... 3 I. APPELLEE HAS ABANDONDED THE SOLE BASIS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH IT PLEAD, AND NOW RELIES ONA THEORY IT DID NOT PLEAD... 3 II. III. IV. APPELLEE'S ARGUMENT IS OUTSIDE ITS PLEADINGS AND MUST BE DISREGARDED... 4 THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO APPELLANTS' OFFER TO SEE THE STORES... 6 APPELLEE FAILED TO OBJECT TO APPELLANTS' CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE AND HAS CONSENTED TO ITS CONSIDERATION... 9 CONCLUSION PRAYER
3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases Baroid Equipment, Inc. v. Odeco Drilling, Inc., 184 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tex. App. - Houston [1 st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied)... 8 Ceballos v. El Paso Health Care Sys., 881 S.W.2d 439, (Tex. App. - El Paso 1994, writ denied).... Gannon v. Baker, 818 S.W.2d 754,756 (Tex. 1991)... 9 Martin v. Durden, 965 S.W.2d 562, (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. denied)... 9 Peters v. Lerew, 139 S.W.2d 321, (Tex. Civ. App. - Galveston 1940, writ dism'd judgmn't cor.)... 8 Travis v. The City of Mesquite, 830 S. W.2d 94, 100 (Tex. 1992)... 5 Trusty v. Strayhorn, 87 S.W.3d 756, 763 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 2002, no pet.)... 9 Via Net, u.s. Delivery Systems et al v. TIG Insurance Company, 211 S. W.3d 310, (Tex. 2006)... 5 Rules TEX. R. CIY. P. 166a(c)
4 NO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS LA PROVIDENCIA FOOD PRODUCTS, CO. and ROBERTO MEZA, Individually, Appellants v. SUPER PLAZA STORES, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 116 th Judicial District Court, Dallas, Texas, the Honorable Bruce Priddy, Presiding REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: COME NOW, LA PROVIDENCIA FOOD PRODUCTS, CO., and ROBERTO MEZA, APPELLANTS, Defendants below, and file their reply brief in support of their appeal, and as grounds for reversal of the trial court's judgment respectfully show as follows: 1
5 REPLY ISSUES PRESENTED I. APPELLEE HAS ABANDONDED THE SOLE BASIS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH IT PLEAD, AND NOW RELIES ON A THEORY IT DID NOT PLEAD. II. III. IV. APPELLEE'S ARGUMENT IS OUTSIDE ITS PLEADINGS AND MUST BE DISREGARDED. THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO APPELLANTS' OFFER TO SELL THE STORES. APPELLEE FAILED TO OBJECT TO APPELLANTS' CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE AND HAS CONSENTED TO ITS CONSIDERATION. 2
6 ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES I. APPELLEE HAS ABANDONDED THE SOLE BASIS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH IT PLEADED, AND NOW RELIES ON A THEORY IT DID NOT PLEAD. Appellee's entire theory of fraud at the trial court plainly rested upon its contention that Appellants were its agents. Contrary to Appellee's position now presented for the first time at the appellate level, i.e., that agency is not required for liability, such was not the case before the trial court. For example, Appellee's Original Petition includes the following: a) "Since La Providencia and Super Plaza had agreed La Providencia and Meza would no longer operate in the grocery store business in North Texas, La Providencia and Meza agreed to work with Super Plaza to facilitate Super Plaza acquiring the three stores offered to La Providencia by Grocers Supply. The parties never intended that La Providencia would acquire or operate the Stores for its own benefit, but merely as the agent of Super Plaza." (Plaintiffs Original Petition, Para. 9, c.r. 8-9); b) "Operating as the agent for Super Plaza... "; "Relying upon Meza's representations, as the agent of Super Plaza... " (Plaintiffs Original Petition, Para. 10, C.R. 9); c) "Again, at all times Super Plaza believed Meza, and La Providencia, were Super Plaza's agents... " (Plaintiffs Original Petition, Para. 13, C.R. 11); 3
7 d) "CAUSES OF ACTION... FRAUD "Super Plaza incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 16 inclusive as if fully set forth at length herein." (Plaintifi's Original Petition, Para. 17, c.r. 13); e) "As stated above, La Providencia, and Roberto Meza, acted as the agents of Super Plaza in the negotiation of the purchase price of the Stores with Grocers Supply." (Plaintifi's Original Petition, Para. 18, C.R. 13). Appellee's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and its proffered summary judgment evidence are replete with similar references to Appellee's sole theory of liability against Appellants. Perhaps because it is so abundantly clear that there are genuine issues of material fact with regard to Appellee's fraud claim, Appellee consciously determined not to brief or address with this Court the sole theory upon which it sought and obtained a judgment against Appellants at the trial court. Indeed, a review of Appellee's brief reveals a careful excision of all references to agency. Appellee even objected that Appellants briefed the issue, stating the Appellants' statement of facts was too extensive. As a result, the only pertinent presentation to this Court for the reversal or affirmance of the trial court's judgment has been made by Appellants. Appellee apparently has chosen to abandon its sole theory of liability presented to the court below. II. APPELLEE'S ARGUMENT IS OUTSIDE ITS PLEADINGS AND MUST BE DISREGARDED. After Appellants filed their brief in this court, for the first time, Appellee has attempted to switch its theory of liability. It abandoned its agency theory of liability to 4
8 uphold its fraud judgment, and is urging fraud liability via a parol evidence theory based on a partial contract provided to it by Appellants, a contract to which it was not a party. However, as set forth above, Appellee's new theory is not pleaded in its Original Petition, and further, was not pleaded or argued in its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Texas summary judgment practice always has required the theory of liability presented via the motion for summary judgment to have been presented in the movant's pleadings. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a( c). If summary judgment is sought on a matter that has not been pleaded, the non-movant has two choices. It can object to the lack of supporting pleadings, or try the issue by consent. See Via Net, Us. Delivery Systems et at v. TIG Insurance Company, 2ll S.W.3d 310,313 (Tex. 2006). "[Appellants] are not required to guess what unpleaded claims might apply and negate them." Id. Further, "[i]n an appeal from a summary judgment, issues to be reviewed by the appellate court must have been actually presented to and considered by the trial court. A summary judgment cannot be affirmed on a ground not specifically presented in the motion for summary judgment.... Consequently, never having been presented to the trial court, the question cannot now be urged as a ground for affirming the summary judgment." Travis v. The City of Mesquite, 830 S. W.2d 94, 100 (Tex. 1992). As Appellee's new theory was neither pleaded nor presented in its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, it must be disregarded as a basis for affirmance of the trial court's judgment. 5
9 III. THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO APPELLANTS' OFFER TO SELL THE STORES. Moreover, even were this Court to consider Appellee's new theory of fraud liability, the theory must be rejected because it is not the law. Unfortunately now for Appellee, it has briefed itself into a conundrum. As has been presented already, during the course of negotiations for a contract of purchase for three grocery stores between La Providencia, as seller, and Appellee, as buyer, Meza faxed a copy ofthe Partial Assignment contract for the stores which had been entered into between Grocers Supply and Appellants. Meza provided Appellee a copy of the Partial Assignment with the amount that La Providencia would sell the stores to Appellee, and that Appellee would be required to pay for each of the stores. (C.R. 153; MezaAff., p. 6, ~23.) Meza did so by changing the last page of the Partial Assignment to reflect the selling price between La Providencia and Appellee, because it was the most convenient way to send Appellee the information. (C.R ; Meza Aff., p. 2-3; ~9.) Appellants did not tell Appellee that the faxed prices were the purchase price for the stores as between La Providencia and Grocers Supply. Id. The Partial Assignment was not a part of the contract between La Providencia and Appellant. In fact, Mr. Meza testified in his affidavit: "I was only telling them what I was willing to sell the stores to them for. I was not acting on their behalf and never agreed with Super Plaza that I would be representing their interests. I was negotiating a price for sale, and that's what I communicated to them." (C.R. 150; MezaAff., p. 3, ~12). 6
10 Indeed, the summary judgment record reflects that Appellee solicited an offer to sell from La Providencia, which precipitated Meza's transmission of the fax which reflected the amounts at which La Providencia was willing to sell. (C.R. 149; Meza Aff., p. 2, ~9). Mr. Meza was negotiating a price for sale of the stores from La Providencia to Appellee, and "that's what [he] communicated to them." (C.R. 150; MezaAff., p. 3, ~12). In other words, the fax to Appellee was an offer to sell, not a contract to which the parol evidence rule would apply. Appellee contends that fraud has been proved as a matter of law because Meza faxed a partial contract to Appellee to which it was not a party. Appellee has argued that the partial contract is not ambiguous, and that because it references that the addendum attached to the original Partial Assignment between La Providencia and Grocers Supply is the purchase price to be paid by La Providencia to Grocers Supply, it means as a matter of law that Appellants made a false representation to Appellee when Meza submitted the offer to sell. Appellee has argued that this Court must ignore all other evidence properly before the trial court except that which is now presented by Appellee in its brief. Appellee necessarily has argued, without specifically stating, that its argument prevails because no parol evidence is admissible to controvert Appellee's position that the faxed offer to sell to Appellee was a representation to Appellee regarding the purchase price that La Providencia paid to Grocers Supply. There simply is no other way for Appellee to arrive at its conclusion which it has presented to this Court. By stating that the fax is not ambiguous, and that it must be construed within the "four comers" of the document, Appellee is asking 7
11 the Court to disregard all parol evidence which places the faxed offer to sell to Appellee in its proper context. Appellee's argument is not the law. The parol evidence rule does not apply against a nonparty to a contract. "The general rule is that, before one contract is merged into another, the last contract must be between the same parties as the first, must embrace the same subject matter, and must have been so intended by the parties. The rule that parol evidence shall not be received to alter or contradict a written instrument applies to controversies between parties to it, and those claiming under them, but not to strangers." Baroid Equipment, Inc. v. Odeco Drilling, Inc., 184 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tex. App. - Houston [lst Dist.] 2005, pet. denied); Peters v. Lerew, l39 S.W.2d 321, 327 (Tex. Civ. App. - Galveston 1940, writ dism'd judgmn't cor.). Super Plaza is a stranger to that Partial Assignment. The testimony of Mr. Meza was simply explaining the purpose of the fax. He was not seeking to explain the meaning of a contract to which Super Plaza was a party. Hence, there was no reason or requirement to plead ambiguity. The summary judgment evidence raises material issues of fact which controvert any purported agency relationship between Appellants and Appellee. Accordingly, Appellee is, at a minimum, an arguable stranger to the contract. Appellee is a stranger to the contract if Appellants are not its agents. Baroid Equipment, Inc., supra; Peters v. Lerew, supra. As a result, the parol evidence rule does not apply as a matter of law, and the fax cannot be construed as a matter of law. It follows that no fraud has been proved as a matter of law. 8
12 Further, the parol evidence rule applies only to contractual or jural writings evidencing the creation, modification, termination or securing of a particular right or obligation. Gannon v. Baker, 818 S.W.2d 754, 756 (Tex. 1991). Similar to the Supreme Court's statement that corporate records are generally not operative legal transactions for the purpose of the parol evidence rule, neither is the faxed offer to sell delivered by Meza to Appellee. See id. Appellants therefore are entitled to have this Court consider all of their evidence which was submitted to the trial court, which evidence places the offer to sell in its proper context, and which raises material issues of genuine fact which require a reversal of the trial court's judgment. IV. APPELLEE FAILED TO OBJECT TO APPELLANTS' CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE AND HAS CONSENTED TO ITS CONSIDERATION. It is the better rule that a party seeking affirmance of a summary judgment, just as a party seeking reversal, is required to object to claimed defects in the form of summary judgment affidavits. Trusty v. Strayhorn, 87 S.W.3d 756, 763 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 2002, no pet.); accord, Martin v. Durden, 965 S.W.2d 562, 565 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. denied). I Appellee failed to object to any of Appellants' evidence before the trial court. Accordingly, any argument that this Court cannot and should not consider the entirety of Appellants' trial court evidence has been waived on appeal. Trusty v. Strayhorn, supra; Martin v. Durden, supra. 1 See contra. Ceballos v. El Paso Health Care Sys., 881 S,W,2d 439,445 (Tex. App. - EI Paso 1994, writ denied). 9
13 Based upon the summary judgment record, the judgment cannot be sustained. CONCLUSION Appellee implicitly has conceded that there are material issues of genuine fact with regard to its theory of liability it pleaded and presented to the trial court, upon which the trial court acted and entered summary judgment against Appellants. Appellee is not entitled, as it has presumed, to switch its theory of liability on appeal. Appellee's new theory, however, even if considered, still is not sufficient to sustain the judgment below. The trial court's judgment should be reversed, and this case remanded for a jury trial. PRAYER For all of the foregoing reasons, as well as all of the reasons previously argued in Appellants' Brief previously submitted, there is no appropriate basis under the law or the facts of the summary judgment record before this Court upon which the trial court's final summary judgment in this case may be affirmed. Appellants respectfully request the Court to reverse the trial court's judgment in its entirety, remand this case for a new trial, tax the costs of this appeal against Appellee, and for such other and further relief as is just. 10
14 Respectfully submitted, SULLIVAN & HOLSTON a Partners ip of Professional Corporations Rosa. r nstein State Bar No William o. Holston, Jr., P.C. William O. Holston, Jr. State BarNo Carol Lynn Wolfram, Of Counsel State Bar No Nathan M. Nichols State Bar No N. Central Expy. Suite 980 Dallas, Texas (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Tex. R. App. P. 9.5, on counsel of record on this ~ day of November, 2010, via certified mail, return receipt to: Via Certified Mail No Andrew H. Roberts Kenneth W. Sloan Sloan & Roberts, PLLC 5950 Berkshire Lane, Suite 450 Dallas, TX
NOS CR; CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, TEXAS. COURTNI SCHULZ, Appellant. vs.
NOS. 05-12-00299-CR; 05-12-00300-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, TEXAS 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 06/26/2012 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk COURTNI SCHULZ, Appellant vs.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS No. 17-0488 RICHARD SEIM AND LINDA SEIM, PETITIONERS, v. ALLSTATE TEXAS LLOYDS AND LISA SCOTT, RESPONDENTS ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
More informationCause No CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS. MARTIN GREENSTEIN, Appellant
Cause No. 05-09-00640-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS MARTIN GREENSTEIN, Appellant v. CURTIS LEO BAGGETT and BART BAGGETT, Appellees Appealed from the
More informationNo CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. R.J. SUAREZ ENTERPRISES, INC. Appellant / Cross-Appellee
No. 05-11-00934-CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ016760221 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12 March 5 P12:50 Lisa Matz CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS R.J. SUAREZ ENTERPRISES,
More informationAPPEAL NO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED APPEAL NO. 05-10-00490-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS GREENLEE ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL Appellants, v. KWIK INDUSTRIES, INC.,
More informationAuto accident Motion for Summary Judgment complete package
Auto accident Motion for Summary Judgment complete package Motion for summary judgment 1. The purpose of a summary judgment is to obtain relatively quickly either a partial or complete judgment if all
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-03-00156-CV Amanda Baird; Peter Torres; and Peter Torres, Jr., P.C., Appellants v. Margaret Villegas and Tom Tourtellotte, Appellees FROM THE COUNTY
More informationNo CV IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS. Appellants, Appellee. APPELLEE S OPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AS MOOT
No. 03-14-00635-CV IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/2/2015 1:33:41 AM MICHAEL LEONARD GOEBEL AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 207 CAZADOR DRIVE, SAN MARCOS, TEXAS 78666, Appellants, v.
More informationCAUSE NO CV FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS INWOOD ON THE PARK, APPELLANT, STEPHANIE MORRIS AND ALL OCCUPANTS,
CAUSE NO. 05-11-01042-CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ016539672 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 11 October 12 A9:39 Lisa Matz CLERK FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS INWOOD ON THE PARK, APPELLANT,
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DALLAS, TEXAS. JOHN MUKORO, Appellant, vs. BRIDGET MYERS, Appellee.
NO. 05-10-00856-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DALLAS, TEXAS JOHN MUKORO, Appellant, vs. BRIDGET MYERS, Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE 192 ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
More informationCV. In the Court of Appeals For the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
05-11-01687-CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ016746958 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12 February 26 P12:53 Lisa Matz CLERK In the Court of Appeals For the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas NEXION HEALTH AT DUNCANVILLE,
More informationNo CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 5TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, AT DALLAS, TEXAS. ROSBOTTOM INTERESTS, LLC, Appellant,
No. 05-10-00830-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 5TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, AT DALLAS, TEXAS ROSBOTTOM INTERESTS, LLC, Appellant, v. H.T. MOORE, LLC, Appellee Appealed from the 44th District Court of Dallas
More informationNo CV IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS
No. 05-10-01150-CV IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 7/11/11 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk SHIDEH SHARIFI, as Independent Executor of the ESTATE OF GHOLAMREZA SHARIFI,
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued July 10, 2014 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00384-CV REGINALD L. GILFORD, SR., Appellant V. TEXAS FIRST BANK, Appellee On Appeal from the 10th District
More informationNo CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS CITY OF DALLAS, Defendant/Appellant, MAURYA PATRICK,
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED No. 05-10-00727-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS CITY OF DALLAS, Defendant/Appellant, v. MAURYA PATRICK, Plaintiff/Appellee. REPLY BRIEF
More informationFIFTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 05-11-01327-CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ016716717 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12 February 7 P7:40 Lisa Matz CLERK In The FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS Dallas, Texas Edmund Sanchez, M.D. and Henry B. Randall,
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. BRIAN ANTHONY BERARDINELLI, Appellant V. NOVA LYNNE PICKELS, Appellee
Dismiss and Opinion Filed October 23, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01390-CV BRIAN ANTHONY BERARDINELLI, Appellant V. NOVA LYNNE PICKELS, Appellee On Appeal
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00250-CV Alexandra Krot and American Homesites TX, LLC, Appellants v. Fidelity National Title Company, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, TEXAS. TERRY RAY JAMES, Appellant, LUPE VALDEZ, ET AL, Appellee.
NO.05-11-01506-CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ016747534 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12 February 27 A10:53 Lisa Matz CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, TEXAS TERRY RAY
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Affirmed; Opinion Filed January 10, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00118-CV THOMAS J. GRANATA, II, Appellant V. MICHAEL KROESE AND JUSTIN HILL, Appellees On Appeal
More informationCAUSE NO CR THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT DALLAS, TEXAS KIMBERLY SHERVON GARRETT, APPELLANT,
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED CAUSE NO. 05-08-01288-CR THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT DALLAS, TEXAS KIMBERLY SHERVON GARRETT, APPELLANT, V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE. CRIMINAL DISTRICT
More informationNO CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 5TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DALLAS, TEXAS. DENNIS GENE WRIGHT, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
NO. 05-09-00421-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 5TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DALLAS, TEXAS DENNIS GENE WRIGHT, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ON APPEAL IN CAUSE NUMBERS 2008-1-922 FROM THE COUNTY COURT
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. JJW DEVELOPMENT, LLC and JOHN J. WINGFILED, JR.
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED NO. 05-10-01359-CV 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 8/19/11 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS JJW DEVELOPMENT, LLC and JOHN J. WINGFILED,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT v. No. 05-10-00971-CR SCOTT ALAN RAMSEY, APPELLEE APPEALED FROM CAUSE NUMBER 004-81999-10 IN THE COLLIN COUNTY
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Reverse and Render and Opinion Filed August 20, 2013 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-11-00970-CV CTMI, LLC, MARK BOOZER AND JERROD RAYMOND, Appellants V. RAY FISCHER
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DALLAS, TEXAS. REGINA SANDERS BRUCE, Appellant. CLAYTON C. ELLIOTT, Appellee.
NO. 05-10-00522-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DALLAS, TEXAS REGINA SANDERS BRUCE, Appellant v. CLAYTON C. ELLIOTT, Appellee. On Appeal from the 256th District Court Trial Court No.
More informationInformation or instructions: Motion Consent of Client & Order to substitute counsel PREVIEW
Information or instructions: Motion Consent of Client & Order to substitute counsel 1. This motion allows attorneys to substitute on a case. 2. See TRCP 8, which states that the leading counsel shall be
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS. Petitioner, Respondent. From the First Court of Appeals at Houston, Texas. (No.
No. 15-0993 FILED 15-0993 12/19/2016 5:11:34 PM tex-14366426 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS THE HONORABLE MARK HENRY, COUNTY JUDGE OF GALVESTON COUNTY, Petitioner,
More informationNO CV. In the Court of Appeals. For the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas. Austin, Texas JAMES BOONE
NO. 03-16-00259-CV ACCEPTED 03-16-00259-CV 13047938 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/4/2016 11:45:25 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK In the Court of Appeals For the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. ESTER WILLIAMS AND/OR ALL OCCUPANTS, Appellants
ACCEPTED 225EFJ016447104 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 11 August 14 P9:04 Lisa Matz CLERK NO. 05-11-00434-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS ESTER WILLIAMS AND/OR
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued March 17, 2011 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-09-01039-CV LEISHA ROJAS, Appellant V. ROBERT SCHARNBERG, Appellee On Appeal from the 300th District Court Brazoria
More informationCAUSE NO CV. JAMES FREDRICK MILES, IN THE 87 th DISTRICT COURT DEFENDANT TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. S
CAUSE NO. 16-0137CV JAMES FREDRICK MILES, IN THE 87 th DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, v. TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant. LEON COUNTY, TEXAS MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-07-00317-CV Michael Graham, Appellant v. Rosban Construction, Inc. and Jack R. Bandy, Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY, 33RD JUDICIAL
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-03-00608-CV Jeanam Harvey, Appellant v. Michael Wetzel, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 99-13033,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS. No CV. HAMILTON GUARANTY CAPITAL, LLC, Appellant,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS No. 05-11-01401-CV 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 02/08/2012 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk HAMILTON GUARANTY CAPITAL, LLC, Appellant, v. ORPHAN
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed April 22, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-11-01540-CV CADILLAC BAR WEST END REAL ESTATE AND L. K. WALES, Appellants V. LANDRY S RESTAURANTS,
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A MAY 29, 2009 IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
NO. 07-08-0292-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A MAY 29, 2009 IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CYNTHIA RUDNICK HUGHES AND RODNEY FANE HUGHES FROM THE 16TH
More informationNO CV HOUSTON DIVISION LAWRENCE C. MATHIS, Appellant. vs. DCR MORTGAGE III SUB I, LLC, Appellee
NO. 14-15-00026-CV ACCEPTED 14-15-00026-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/15/2015 7:55:45 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN FOR THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS IN RE ESTATE OF MARIE A. MERKEL, DECEASED
NO. 05-08-01615-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS IN RE ESTATE OF MARIE A. MERKEL, DECEASED INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR, MATTHEW R. POLLARD Appellant v. RUPERT M. POLLARD Appellee From
More informationAMENDED APPELLANT'S BRIEF
No. 05-10-00970-CR n.,.: " 1 ~ 12 Pi1 3: 25 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS USA iv1. 1 Z, CLERK FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, TEXAS ANDREW COLE HELLER Appellant Vs. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On appeal
More informationNo CV IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS. VICKI BELCHER AND MICHAEL BELCHER, Appellants (Defendants below)
ACCEPTED 03-16-00502-CV 13557685 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/1/2016 2:17:43 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK No. 03-16-00502-CV IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS FILED IN 3rd COURT
More informationNo CV. In the Court of Appeals For the Third Judicial District Austin, Texas. MARC T. SEWELL, Appellant
No. 03-13-00580-CV In the Court of Appeals For the Third Judicial District Austin, Texas MARC T. SEWELL, Appellant ACCEPTED 03-13-00580-CV 223EFJ017765929 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 13 October
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued March 12, 2015 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-14-00210-CV FREEDOM EQUITY GROUP, INC., Appellant V. MTL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 215th
More informationNO CV IN THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS. BRENDA D. TIME, Appellant, MICHAEL A. BURSTEIN, Appellee
NO. 05-11-00791-CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ016728843 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12 February 15 P3:06 Lisa Matz CLERK IN THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS BRENDA D. TIME, Appellant, v. MICHAEL A.
More informationWrit of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed January 14, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Writ of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed January 14, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01474-CV IN RE SUSAN NEWELL CUSTOM HOME BUILDERS, INC.,
More informationNO CV. The Court of Appeals. For The Fourth District of Texas. At San Antonio
NO. 04-14-00354-CV ACCEPTED 04-14-00354-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 1/21/2015 12:53:43 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK The Court of Appeals For The Fourth District of Texas At San Antonio KEITH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. No CV. EVAN LANE VAN SHAW, Appellant. MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY CO.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS No. 05-10-00642-CV EVAN LANE VAN SHAW, Appellant v. MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY CO., Appellee TRIAL CAUSE NO. CC-09-08193-E ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-03-00441-CV Christopher Gardini, Appellant v. Texas Workforce Commission and Dell Products, L.P., Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY,
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed March 30, 2010. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-09-00008-CV PARROT-ICE DRINK PRODUCTS OF AMERICA, LTD., Appellant V. K & G STORES, INC., BALJIT
More informationNO. DC V. 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COLLIN COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, DEFENDANT. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
FILED DALLAS COUNTY 11/3/2014 9:20:24 PM GARY FITZSIMMONS DISTRICT CLERK BILLY D. BURLESON III, JON J. MARK, AND CRAIG A. BENNIGHT, NO. DC-14-09522 IN THE DISTRICT COURT PLAINTIFFS, V. 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-13-00050-CV IN RE: TITUS COUNTY, TEXAS Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Opinion by
More informationReverse in part; Affirm in part; and Remand; Opinion Filed May 5, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No.
Reverse in part; Affirm in part; and Remand; Opinion Filed May 5, 2016. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-00864-CV JOHNATHAN HALTON AND CAROLYN HALTON, Appellants V. AMERICAN
More informationDEFENDANT S 1st AMENDED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE files this his Defendant s
WWWWWWWWW FILED: 12/4/201712:00 12:00 AM SHERRI ADELSTEIN Denton County District Clerk By: Velia Duong, Deputy JESSICA VIDRINE Plaintiff, v. DR. RYAN DANIEL Defendant. CAUSE NO.: 17-8460-431 IN THE DISTRICT
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued January 20, 2011. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-09-01000-CV GRY STRAND TARALDSEN, Appellant V. DODEKA, L.L.C., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN 444444444444444 NO. 03-00-00054-CV 444444444444444 Ron Adkison, Appellant v. Scott, Douglass & McConnico, L.L.P., Appellee 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed July 11, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00552-CV COLLECTIVE ASSET PARTNERS, LLC, Appellant V. BERNARDO K. PANA, ACCP, LP, AND FIRENZE
More informationInformation or instructions: Plea in abatement motion & Order to quash service Alternate Form
Information or instructions: Plea in abatement motion & Order to quash service Alternate Form 1. The following form may be used to request the court to cancel or quash service of citation on a party and
More informationUnofficialCopyOfficeofChrisDanielDistrictClerk
6/8/2018 5:40 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 25176359 By: janel gutierrez Filed: 6/8/2018 5:40 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-06752 FREE AND SOVEREIGN STATE OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed April 2, 2019. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00413-CV ARI-ARMATUREN USA, LP, AND ARI MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellants V. CSI INTERNATIONAL,
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Opinion filed April 27, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00228-CV IN RE CHRISTOPHER J. RUSSO, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 295th
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Remanded and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed September 10, 2015. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-13-01141-CV UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant V. CHARLES SEBER AND
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued April 3, 2014 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-11-00089-CV THE ESTATE OF ADAM BOYD KNETSAR, TRACY NICOLE KNETSAR, AMBER LYNN KNETSAR, LESLIE P. KNETSAR, AND
More informationGARY KUZMIN, Appellant
Affirmed; Opinion Filed January 8, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01394-CV GARY KUZMIN, Appellant V. DAVID A. SCHILLER, Appellee On Appeal from the 429th Judicial
More informationAFFIRM in part; REVERSE in part; REMAND and Opinion Filed August 26, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
AFFIRM in part; REVERSE in part; REMAND and Opinion Filed August 26, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00112-CV MAJESTIC CAST, INC., Appellant V. MAJED KHALAF
More informationCAUSE NO. LELAND PENNINGTON, INC. IN THE COUNTY COURT V. AT LAW NO.
CAUSE NO. LELAND PENNINGTON, INC. IN THE COUNTY COURT V. AT LAW NO. MICHAEL S. CLEM, STEVEN A. CLEM, BROOKTEXLYN LLC, GREGORY L. & JENNIFER L. ROSLUND TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION
More informationCAUSE NO. CV PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. Plaintiff FMC Technologies, Inc., ( FMCTI ) moves this Court to enter judgment
CAUSE NO. CV-29355 FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., v. Plaintiff, FRAC TECH SERVICES, LTD., F/K/A FRAC TECH SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF ERATH COUNTY, TEXAS 266 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-05-00780-CV Elizabeth H. Baize and Bobby Craig Baize, Appellants v. Scott & White Clinic; Scott & White Memorial Hospital; and Scott, Sherwood and
More informationFor Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy
Information & Instructions: Summary judgment 1. The purpose of a Summary Judgment is to expedite the collection process and avoid the expense and delay of a trial. Summary Judgments are most commonly obtained
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed August 26, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-13-00750-CV FRANKLIN D. JENKINS, Appellant V. CACH, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the Civil
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas OPINION
REVERSED and RENDERED, REMANDED; Opinion Filed March 27, 2013 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-11-01690-CV BRENT TIMMERMAN D/B/A TIMMERMAN CUSTOM BUILDERS, Appellant V.
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS. CITY OF DALLAS, Defendant/Appellant,
NO. 05-10-00727-CV ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS CITY OF DALLAS, Defendant/Appellant, v. MAURYA LYNN PATRICK, Plaintiff/Appellee.
More informationQualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert)
Qualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert) 1. Introduction Theodore B. Jereb Attorney at Law P.L.L.C. 16506 FM 529, Suite 115 Houston,
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed October 31, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01269-CV CHARLES WESLEY JEANES AND SIERRA INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, Appellants V. DALLAS COUNTY,
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued June 2, 2011 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-09-01093-CV KIM O. BRASCH AND MARIA C. FLOUDAS, Appellants V. KIRK A. LANE AND DANIEL KIRK, Appellees On Appeal
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-04-00199-CV Tony Wilson, Appellant v. William B. Tex Bloys, Appellee 1 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCCULLOCH COUNTY, 198TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO.
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed March 5, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01212-CV KHYBER HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellant V. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE
More informationNO CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 5TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DALLAS, TEXAS. JOSEPH MICHAEL DEMERS, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
NO. 05-11-01704-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 5TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DALLAS, TEXAS 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 04/05/2012 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk JOSEPH MICHAEL DEMERS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
More informationInformation or instructions: Motion Order Affidavit for substituted service package PREVIEW
Information or instructions: Motion Order Affidavit for substituted service package 1. Motions for Substituted Service must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit. 2. An unsworn Motion for Substituted Service
More informationNo CV. On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC A
Reverse and Render and Opinion Filed July 11, 2013 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-10-01349-CV HARRIS, N.A., Appellant V. EUGENIO OBREGON, Appellee On Appeal from the
More informationNO THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT WARREN KENNETH PAXTON, JR. COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS
NO. 416-81913-2015 THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. 416 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT WARREN KENNETH PAXTON, JR. COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS MOTION TO QUASH INDICTMENT NO. 416-81913-2015 FOR FAILURE TO GIVE
More informationREPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PLAINTIFFS TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, INC. and TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS LANDFILL, INC.
Case 1:11-cv-01070-LY Document 52 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, INC. and TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS LANDFILL, INC.,
More informationCase 4:10-cv RAS -DDB Document 10 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 8
Case 4:10-cv-00034-RAS -DDB Document 10 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION RODNEY WILLIAMS, R.K. INTEREST INC., and JABARI
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed August 14, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01413-CV LAKEPOINTE PHARMACY #2, LLC, RAYMOND AMAECHI, AND VALERIE AMAECHI, Appellants V.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [24]
Weston and Company, Incorporated v. Vanamatic Company Doc. 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION WESTON & COMPANY, INC., v. Plaintiff, Case No. 08-10242 Honorable
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued February 23, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-15-00163-CV XIANGXIANG TANG, Appellant V. KLAUS WIEGAND, Appellee On Appeal from the 268th District Court
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00635-CV Michael Leonard Goebel and all other occupants of 07 Cazador Drive, Appellants v. Sharon Peters Real Estate, Inc., Appellee FROM THE
More informationIN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS AND IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY, TEXAS
IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS AND IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY, TEXAS EX P A R T E Texas Court of Criminal Appeals JOHN WI L L I A M K I N G, Cause No. WR-49,391-03
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Reversed and Remanded; Opinion Filed May 12, 2014 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00596-CV ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant V. UNITED STATES YOUTH SOCCER ASSOCIATION,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS STATE'S REPLY BRIEF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT NO. 05-10-00519-CR V. KATHRYN LYNN TURNER, APPELLEE APPEALED FROM CAUSE NUMBER M10-51379 IN THE COUNTY
More informationAFFIRM in Part, REVERSE in Part, and REMAND; Opinion Filed January 22, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
AFFIRM in Part, REVERSE in Part, and REMAND; Opinion Filed January 22, 2019. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00175-CV TOP CAT READY MIX, LLC, Appellant V. ALLIANCE TRUCKING,
More informationNO CV. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON, TEXAS Clerk
NO. 14-15-00322-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON, TEXAS Clerk GLENN BECKENDORFF, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS WALLER COUNTY JUDGE, et al., Appellants V. CITY OF
More informationIN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No CR No CR
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-15-00133-CR No. 10-15-00134-CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, v. LOUIS HOUSTON JARVIS, JR. AND JENNIFER RENEE JONES, Appellant Appellees From the County Court at Law No. 1 McLennan
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00066-CV Jacob Robert Allen and Karra Trichele Allen, Appellants v. Rickie Lee Allen, Appellee FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF BURNET COUNTY
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN ON REMAND NO. 03-05-00786-CV Emory B. Perry, James R. Palmersheim, Thomas Palmersheim, John Kee, David J. Herbert, Paul Bowman, John Chambers, Bradley
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-12-00678-CV Darnell Delk, Appellant v. The Honorable Rosemary Lehmberg, District Attorney and The Honorable Robert Perkins, Judge, Appellees FROM
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-11-00592-CV Mark Polansky and Landrah Polansky, Appellants v. Pezhman Berenji and John Berenjy, Appellees 1 FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-01-00312-CV Dr. Rudoulf Michael Metz, Appellant v. Lake LBJ Municipal Utility District; Llano Independent School District; County Education District
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. Ralph D. KNOWLTON, Appellant v. Brenda L. KNOWLTON, Appellee From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS No. 17-0329 HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, PETITIONER, v. LORI ANNAB, RESPONDENT ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS Argued March
More information