law-appeals-common-errors | pro se appeals | inadequate briefing | failure to assign error on appeal |

failure
to cite to record and caselaw authorities | error preservation in the trial court | dismissal for want of
prosecution (DWOP) | failure to file timely notice of appeal | failure to pay filing fee or nonpayment for
record

APPELLATE BRIEFING STANDARDS

Tex. R. App. Proc. 38.1(i) (brief must contain clear and concise argument, with appropriate citations to
authorities and the record); Smith v. Tilton, 3 S.W.3d 77, 89 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1999, no pet.) (failure to raise
and brief issue relating to error in summary judgment waives issue on appeal).
CITE: Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) (stating that brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the
contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.); see Franz v. Katy Indep. Sch.
Dist., 35 S.W.3d 749, 755 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i) requires that an appellants brief contain a clear and concise
argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. TEX. R.
APP.
P. 38.1(i). Rule 38 requires [a party] to provide us with such discussion of the facts and the authorities
relied upon as may be requisite to maintain the point at issue. Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling
USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118, 128 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). This is not done by
merely uttering brief conclusory statements, unsupported by legal citations. Id. Issues on appeal are
waived if an appellant fails to support his contention by citations to appropriate authority . . . . Abdelnour v.
Mid Natl Holdings, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Similarly,
appellate issues are waived when the brief fails to contain a clear argument for the contentions made. Izen v.
Commn for Lawyer Discipline, 322 S.W.3d 308, 322 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied).

COMMON ERRORS COMMITTED BY PARTIES ON APPEAL | GROUNDS FOR
ADVERSE RULING OR DISMISSAL

FAILURE TO CITE LEGAL AUTHORITY (CASE LAW AND STATUTE) WAIVES ISSUE
He also argues that Eriss attorneys fees were unnecessarily incurred because Eris failed to bring forth any
other claim that would entitle him to attorneys fees or reimbursement of maintenance expenses Eris
allegedly
paid.[4] Giannakopoulos provides no authority, however, to support his contention that the award of
attorney
s fees was excessive in relation to the amount of the judgment. Therefore, we conclude [appellant] has
waived this argument on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); Nguyen, 93 S.W.3d at 188; see also In re C.Z.
B., 151 S.W.3d 627, 635 (Tex. App.San Antonio 2004, no pet.) (holding party waived issue on appeal
because his brief did not contain any authority in support of his argument regarding unreasonable and
excessive attorneys fees).
Giannakopulos v. Eris (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 9, 2010)(Brown)
(presentment of claim as condition precedent in attorney's fees claim based on breach of contract)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Jeff Brown
Before Justices Brock Yates, Frost and Brown
14-08-00566-CV Illas Giannakopulos v. Bill Eris
Appeal from 295th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Tracy Christopher

ALL ALTERNATIVE BASES OF COMPLAINED-OF RULING MUST BE CHALLENGED
Gordon v. Allen (pdf) (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 31, 2009)(Keyes)(errors on appeal)
[A]n appellant must attack all independent bases or grounds that fully support a complained-of ruling or
judgment. Britton v. Tex. Dept of Crim. Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676, 681 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2002,
no pet.). If an appellant does not assign any error to an independent ground that, if meritorious, would fully
support the complained-of ruling or judgment, we must accept the validity of that unchallenged independent
ground and affirm the ruling or judgment. Id. at 68081 (This rule is based on the premise that an appellate
court normally cannot alter an erroneous judgment in favor of an appellant in a civil case who does not
challenge that error on appeal.) (citing Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1993)). Because
Gordon did not attack other independent grounds that, if meritorious, would fully support the trial courts
rulings, we accept the validity of the unchallenged independent grounds.
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Keyes
Before Justices Keyes, Alcala and Hanks
01-08-00435-CV Ronald X. Gordon v. Donald Allen, Marvin & Doris Bennett
Appeal from 405th District Court of Galveston County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Wayne J. Mallia

FAILURE TO PROPERLY PRESENT ARGUMENT WITH CITATIONS TO AUTHORITIES
(CASE LAW) AND THE APPELLATE RECORD
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(h) requires that an appellants brief must contain a clear and
concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. Tex.
R. App. P. 38.1(h). Rule 38 requires [a party] to provide us with such discussion of the facts and the
authorities relied upon as may be requisite to maintain the point at issue. Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors
Drilling USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118, 128 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). Issues on appeal
are waived if an appellant fails to support his contention by citations to appropriate authority. Abdelnour v.
Mid Natl Holdings, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Daniel v. Falcon
Interest Realty Corp., 190 S.W.3d 177, 189 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.)
Goffney v. HISD (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jul. 30, 2009)(Hanks)
(delinquent property tax suit, standing to appeal, preservation of error re: constitutional challenge, due
process challenge, inadequate briefing results in waiver of argument on appeal)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Hanks
Before Justices Keyes, Hanks and Bland
01-08-00063-CV Willie H. Goffney and Gladys R. Goffney v. Houston Independent School District
Appeal from 165th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Elizabeth Ray
The Goffneys argument with respect to their third issue does not cite any authority in support of their
contention that the trial court was required to hold a hearing before dismissing their counterclaims. We
therefore hold that the Goffneys have waived their third issue because of inadequate briefing. Tex. R. App.
P. 38.1(h); Wheeler v. Methodist Hosp., 95 S.W.3d 628, 646 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.)

Reed v. REO Properties Corp. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] May 22, 2008)(Alcala)
(waiver of appeal, inadequate briefing)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Alcala
Before Justices Nuchia, Alcala and Hanks
01-06-00637-CV Willis C. Reed v. REO Properties Corp.
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 4 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Roberta A. Lloyd

Bowie v. ASAP Motors (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 9, 2008)(Bland) (pro se appeal, DWOP dismissal)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Bland
Before Judge Wilson, Justices Jennings and Bland
01-07-00730-CV Kenneth Bowie v. ASAP Motors
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 1 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jack Cagle
An appellants failure to brief, or to adequately brief, an issue effects a waiver of that issue on
appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h); Wheeler v. Methodist Hosp., 95 S.W.3d 628, 646 (Tex. App.
Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).
In light of the misrepresentations in Bowies brief concerning the posture of this case, his failure to
present any issue warranting reversal, and his unexplained delay in prosecuting the case, we affirm
the trial courts judgment dismissing Bowies suit for lack of prosecution. All pending motions are
dismissed as moot.

FAILURE TO INCLUDE ARGUMENT IN OPENING BRIEF ON THE MERITS
It is well-settled that Rule 38.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure does not allow an
appellant to include in a reply brief a new issue in response to a matter pointed out in appellees
brief but not raised by the appellant's original brief. In re TCW Global Project Fund II, Ltd., 274 S.W.
3d 166, 171 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P.
38.3.

AVCO Corp. v. Interstate Southwest Ltd (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 3, 2008)
(Supplemental Opinion on motion for rehearing by Guzman)
(declaratory judgment, failure to present claim/argument in original brief)
OVERRULED: Opinion by Justice Guzman
14-05-00860-CV AVCO Corporation, Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division of AVCO Corporation
v. Interstate Southwest, LTD
Appeal from 278th District Court of Grimes County
Trial Court Judge: JERRY A. SANDEL

FAILING TO FILE BRIEF WILL LEAD TO DISMISSAL (AFTER WARNING)
Piper v. Storage Trust Realty (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 10, 2008)(per curiam) (no brief filed)
DISMISSED: Per Curiam
14-07-00334-CV David Piper and Wife Sharon Piper v. Storage Trust Realty, Inc. and Public Storage, Inc.
Appeal from 152nd District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Kenneth Price Wise
A summary judgment may be affirmed on any of the movant's theories which has merit. See Cincinnati Life
Ins. Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623, 627 (Tex. 1996).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPEALS
American National Ins v. Deutsche Bank (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jun. 4, 2009)(Radack)
(summary judgment appeals appellate procedure, need to challenge all bases for summary judgment)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Chief Justice Radack
01-08-00791-CV American National Insurance, American National Investment Accounts, Inc., SM&R
Investments, Inc., American National Property and Casualty Company, Standard Life and Accident Insurance
Company, Farm Family Life Insurance Company, Farm Family Casualty Ins., v. Deutsche Bank Securites, Inc.
fka Deutsche Banc Alex. Braown Inc., and Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown
Appeal from 133rd District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Lamar McCorkle

FAILURE TO COVER ALL GROUNDS
Fontenot v. Little (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 22, 2009)(Alcala)
(sanctions, must attack all grounds for judgment on appeal)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Alcala
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Alcala and Hanks
01-07-00328-CV Michael Fontenot v. Mark Edward Little and Comco Direct Company
Appeal from 11th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Mark Davidson

BE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT YOU (DON'T) ASK FOR
Jay Petroleum, LLC v. EOG Resources, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] May 7, 2009)(Alcala)
(scope of remand, implications of relief requested or not prayed for in court of appeals, remand of
counterclaims, attorney's fees, fact issue as to reasonableness of attorney's fees, inflated number of hours
claimed, controverting countervailing fee affidavit by attorney)
REVERSE TC JUDGMENT AND REMAND CASE TO TC FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS:
Opinion by Justice Alcala
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Alcala and Hanks
01-08-00541-CV
Jay Petroleum, L.L.C. v. EOG Resources, Inc., f/k/a Enron Oil & Gas Company
Appeal from 189th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. William R. Burke. Jr.

McCoy v. North Forest ISD (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 15, 2007)(per curiam) (workers
compensation settlement judgment void, failure to follow statutory requirements, appellate procedure,
motion
to reinstate was late, denial not separately appealable, deadline for filing notice of appeal not extended,
appeal dismissed as untimely for want of jurisdiction)
DISMISSED: Per Curiam
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Seymore)
14-07-00523-CV Barney L. McCoy v. North Forest Independent School District and Janice Jackson
Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 3 of Harris County (Hon. Linda Storey)