Sung Sik Choi v. Juggernaut Transp., Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Envtl. Indus. Servs. Grp. v. Holt Tex. Ltd.

    No. 04-23-00067-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 12, 2024)

    Appellants' failure to include their summary judgment response, if one was filed, requires us to presume that pleading would support the trial court's ruling. DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp., 793 S.W.2d 670, 689 (Tex. 1990) (affirming summary judgment when affidavit filed in support of same was not included in appellate record); Sung Sik Choi v. Juggernaut Transp., Inc., No. 05-16-01386-CV, 2017 WL 2729907, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 26, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  2. Russell v. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, LLP

    No. 05-23-00224-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 24, 2024)

    Documents attached as appendices to an appellate brief are not part of the appellate record and cannot be considered. See Sung Sik Choi v. Juggernaut Transportation, Inc., No. 05-16-01386-CV, 2017 WL 2729907, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 26, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).

  3. Rodriguez v. Rodriguez

    No. 04-23-00092-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 29, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp., 793 S.W.2d 670, 689 (Tex. 1990) (affirming summary judgment when affidavit filed in support of same was not included in appellate record); Sung Sik Choi v. Juggernaut Transp., Inc., No. 05-16-01386-CV, 2017 WL 2729907, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 26, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  4. Langston v. Freese & Goss, Pllc.

    No. 05-17-01140-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 3, 2018)

    "The attachment of documents as appendices to an appellate brief is not formal inclusion in the appellate record." Sung Sik Choi v. Juggernaut Transp., Inc., No. 05-16-01386-CV, 2017 WL 2729907, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 26, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Brumley v. Image Cleaners & Laundry, Inc., No. 05-05-01478-CV, 2006 WL 1727753, at *2 (Tex. App. —Dallas June 26, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.); Perry v. Kroger Stores Store No. 119, 741 S.W.2d 533, 534 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, no pet.)). After reviewing the entire record, including the timing and substance of the pleadings and the testimony at the sanctions hearing, we conclude that there is some evidence to support the trial court's decision not to impose sanctions.