Aubrey v. Aubrey

18 Citing cases

  1. Aubrey v. The Estate of Tobolowsky

    3:19-CV-2792-N-BK (N.D. Tex. Sep. 28, 2021)

    Hendricks moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint on several bases, but the Court need only address one, namely that the claims against him are barred by res judicata because the same issues at stake here were litigated and decided in state court. Doc. 76 at 16-17 (citing Aubrey v. Aubrey, Cause No. DC-15-11685, 14th District Court, Dallas County (2015), aff'd 523 S.W.3d 299, 301 (Tex. App -Dallas 2017)).

  2. Aubrey v. Estate of Tobolowsky

    CASE No. 3:19-CV-2792-N-BK (N.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2021)

    Betsy moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint based on, inter alia, the doctrine of res judicata, claiming that the same issues at stake here have been litigated and decided in state court. Doc. 39 at 13-14 (citing Aubrey v. Aubrey, Cause No. DC-15-11685, 14th District Court, Dallas County (2015), aff'd 523 S.W.3d 299, 301 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017)). Because the prior judgment at issue was issued in Texas state court, this Court must give those judgments the preclusive effect they would be given under Texas law.

  3. In re K.K.W.

    No. 05-16-00795-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 20, 2018)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming summary judgment on constructive fraud claim after holding that trial court erred in granting summary judgment because appellate court's holdings on other issues in appeal negated appellant's constructive fraud, rendering error in granting summary judgment harmless

    Whether a plaintiff has standing to assert a particular claim depends on the pleaded facts and cause of action asserted. Aubrey v. Aubrey, 523 S.W.3d 299, 311 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, no pet.) (quoting Mazon Assocs., Inc. v. Comerica Bank, 195 S.W.3d 800, 803 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.). Standing may be based on common law or statutory authority, but when standing has been statutorily conferred, the statute provides the correct framework for the standing analysis.

  4. Ackers v. Comerica Bank & Tr.

    654 S.W.3d 750 (Tex. 2022)   1 Legal Analyses

    The declaration Larry sought would resolve a real dispute regarding whether the Heirs are in fact beneficiaries with such rights.See alsoAubrey v. Aubrey , 523 S.W.3d 299, 311-13 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, no pet.).

  5. Carroll v. I.Q. Data Int'l

    No. 05-24-00041-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 10, 2024)

    Further, where, as here, findings of fact and conclusions of law are not requested or filed, we "imply all facts necessary to support the trial court's judgment that are supported by the evidence and must affirm the trial court's judgment if it can be upheld on any legal theory supported by the evidence." Aubrey v. Aubrey, 523 S.W.3d 299, 309 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2017, no pet.) (quoting Rossmann v. Bishop Colo. Retail Plaza, L.P., 455 S.W.3d 797, 808 (Tex. App.- Dallas 2015, pet. denied)); (citing Weisfield v. Tex. Land Fin. Co., 162 S.W.3d 379, 381 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.)).

  6. Children of the Kingdom v. Cent. Appraisal Dist. of Taylor Cnty.

    674 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. App. 2023)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that when standing is conferred by statute, the common-law criteria of a special injury does not apply and the analysis is a straight statutory construction of the relevant statute to determine upon whom the legislature conferred standing and whether the claimant in question falls within that category

    Standing to sue may be predicated on either statutory or common law grounds. Aubrey v. Aubrey , 523 S.W.3d 299, 311 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, no pet.) ; Everett v. TK-Taito, L.L.C. , 178 S.W.3d 844, 850 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). When standing is conferred by statute, the common-law criteria regarding standing does not apply.

  7. Powell v. Hodgkins

    No. 14-22-00300-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 9, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Because a trial court may exercise its discretion to declare a party a vexatious litigant only if the required showings are made, we imply findings that those requirements have been met. See, e.g., Jones v. Markel, No. 14-14-00216-CV, 2015 WL 3878261, at *5 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] June 23, 2015, pet. denied) (mem. op.); see also Aubrey v. Aubrey, 523 S.W.3d 299, 309 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2017, no pet.). These implied findings also are reviewed for legal and factual sufficiency.

  8. Serafine v. Crump

    665 S.W.3d 93 (Tex. App. 2023)   Cited 7 times

    Finally, for Justice Goodwin, who at the time of the hearing held office as an appellate justice, the trial court was within its discretion to infer from the district judge's recusal order that Justice Goodwin would similarly recuse in similar situations—those when Serafine appears before the judge as a party or attorney of record.SeeUnifund CCR Partners , 299 S.W.3d at 97 ("The trial court does not abuse its discretion if it bases its decision on conflicting evidence and some evidence supports its decision."); accordAubrey v. Aubrey , 523 S.W.3d 299, 309 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, no pet.) ; see alsoZeifman v. Michels , No. 03-12-00114-CV, 2013 WL 4516082, at *6 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 22, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  9. English v. Parcel Express, Inc.

    No. 05-20-00961-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 7, 2022)

    We review a sanctions order for an abuse of discretion. Nath v. Tex. Children's Hosp., 446 S.W.3d 355, 361 (Tex. 2014); Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2007); Aubrey v. Aubrey, 523 S.W.3d 299, 315 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2017, no pet.). An assessment of sanctions will only be reversed if the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles, such that its ruling was arbitrary or unreasonable.

  10. Return Lee to Lee Park v. Rawlings

    No. 05-19-00456-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 28, 2020)

    When standing has been statutorily conferred, the statute itself serves as the proper framework for a standing analysis. Aubrey v. Aubrey, 523 S.W.3d 299, 311 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, no pet.). The party seeking relief must allege and establish standing within the parameters of the language used in the statute.