- Areas of Practice
- Significant Victories
- Publications & Presentations
Morgan joined the firm in 2015 and, since then, has successfully handled numerous appeals and assisted trial counsel in briefing and arguing various substantive legal issues, including motions for summary judgment, jury trial error preservation, and post-trial motions. Morgan has presented oral argument to several intermediate courts of appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas. In 2018, she was named a “Rising Star” in the Appellate category by Super Lawyers Magazine, a Thomson Reuters publication. And in 2018, the Dallas Trial Lawyers Association gave Morgan the John Howie Award—an award given for the courageous pursuit of justice in the face of adversity—for her work in changing the way Texas courts interpret the statute governing the expunction of records for those acquitted of a crime.
Morgan grew up in the Four Corners area of New Mexico and graduated with high honors from New Mexico State University in 2011. In 2014, she graduated cum laude from Baylor University School of Law with a concentration in business litigation. During law school, Morgan competed in moot court and was a quarter-finalist in the Federal Bar Association moot court competition. Morgan served as the Evidence Coach for Baylor’s American Association for Justice mock trial teams. She also consistently made the Dean’s List and received the Funderburk Evidence Award, an award given to the third-year student doing the best work in Evidence. Upon completing Baylor’s rigorous Practice Court program, Morgan served as a grader for the legal writing portion of the program.
Morgan currently serves as a member of the Advocates Committee Board of Directors for the Texas Trial Lawyers Association and as a member of the Board of Directors for the Dallas Trial Lawyers Association. She is also a member of the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association and the William “Mac” Taylor American Inn of Court.
Morgan is licensed to practice law in New Mexico and Texas state courts, as well as in the United States District Court for the Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
South Plains Trial Lawyers Association, Lubbock, Texas (Dec. 19, 2018);
El Paso County Trial Lawyers Association, El Paso, Texas (Apr. 19, 2018);
Texas Trial Lawyers Association: Advocates, Dallas, Texas (Apr. 12, 2018);
Permian Basin Trial Lawyers Association, Odessa, Texas (Mar. 28, 2018)
TTLA Annual Meeting: Medical Malpractice Breakout Session, Plano, Texas (Dec. 7, 2018)
Dallas Trial Lawyers Association, Dallas, Texas (Oct. 18, 2018)
Texas Trial Lawyers Association Webinar (Sept. 26, 2018)
TTLA Car Wrecks Seminar, Houston, Texas (March 3, 2016)
Successfully upheld an order denying a motion to transfer venue in a Texas Dram Shop Act case from Dallas County to Tarrant County on the basis that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded a cause of action against an employee of a bar who resided in Dallas County at the time of the incident. In an issue of first impression, the court of appeals unanimously held that the plain language of the Dram Shop Act provides a civil cause of action against not just the bar itself, but also an individual employee who overserves an intoxicated person.
Approving sufficiency of expert’s report under Chapter 74, rejecting attack on “believability” of expert’s preliminary report, and holding that a board-certified orthopedic surgeon is qualified to offer an opinion as to the standard of care required of an emergency physician prescribing crutches, even though surgeon was not an emergency physician.
In a case of first impression, the Texas Supreme Court affirmed the right of a person who is wrongfully accused and later acquitted of a crime to have the records related to that arrest expunged—even though the person was also arrested on an unrelated offense, to which she pled guilty. In affirming the opinion of the Dallas Court of Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the State’s “arrest based” interpretation, expressly disagreeing with numerous courts of appeals that had adopted this same interpretation. Instead, the Texas Supreme Court concluded that the statute’s plain language is not arrest-based and therefore does not prohibit the expunction of records related to an acquitted offense, even where the arrest includes another, unrelated offense.
In a case of first impression, the court of appeals affirmed an order granting the expunction of records relating to an arrest for felony aggravated assault for which T.S.N. was subsequently acquitted. The State, claiming that the entire expunction statute is “arrest based,” argued that the records could not be expunged because, when T.S.N. was arrested, she was also arrested on a totally unrelated misdemeanor theft charge to which she ultimately pled guilty. The court of appeals rejected this “arrest-based” interpretation, concluding that, based on the plain language of article 55.01(a)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a guilty plea to a wholly unrelated offense does not prohibit the expunction of records related to the acquitted offense, even where the arrest arises out of both.
Successfully defended Texas and Louisiana courts’ determination that, while Texas court had jurisdiction as the child’s “home state” under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Louisiana court was the more convenient forum and therefore could exercise jurisdiction over child custody determination.
Affirming trial court’s denial of City’s plea to the jurisdiction arising out of injuries suffered when a City of Houston police dog attacked and injured a minor. The court of appeals held that use of the police dog was not an intentional tort, but the negligent use of tangible personal property for which the Texas Tort Claims Act waived immunity.
Upholding a post-answer default judgment in a divorce proceeding, where the appellant attempted to challenge the judgment on due process grounds, but failed to file a motion for new trial or introduce evidence satisfying the Craddock factors.
Affirming trial court’s ruling refusing to dismiss medical malpractice case based on the defendants’ challenge to the Chapter 74 expert reports.
Upholding a default judgment in favor of a personal injury plaintiff, where the defendant attempted to challenge the judgment through a bill of review more than four years after the judgment was entered, claiming extrinsic fraud in the manner in which substituted service was executed.