Mailing address:

P.O. Box 224626
Dallas, Texas 75222

Physical address:
2223 W. Jefferson Blvd.
Dallas, Texas 75208

214.946.8000 phone
214.946.8433 fax



Morgan A. McPheeters, Associate

= read publication
Publications & Presentations

10 Things Your Appellate Lawyer Wants You to Know About Summary Judgment

Capital Area Trial Lawyers Association, Austin, TX (July 9, 2019);
Texas Trial Lawyers Association Car Wrecks Seminar, Houston, TX (Feb. 21, 2019)

Nonparty Medical Discovery in the Wake of In re North Cypress

Permian Basin Trial Lawyers Association, Odessa, TX (June 26, 2019);
Tarrant County Trial Lawyers Association, Fort Worth, TX (Jan. 30, 2019)

Workin’ 9 to 5: Strategically Navigating Employment & Control Issues in Personal Injury Cases

Texas Trial Lawyers Association Midyear Conference, Houston, TX (June 6, 2019)

We’ve Seen Worse: 2017-18 Personal Injury Case Law Update

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)

Stayin’ Alive: Overcoming Common Challenges to Chapter 74 Initial Expert Reports

TTLA Annual Meeting: Medical Malpractice Breakout Session, Plano, Texas (Dec. 7, 2018)

John Howie Award Presentation: State of Texas v. T.S.N.

Dallas Trial Lawyers Association, Dallas, Texas (Oct. 18, 2018)

In re North Cypress Mandamus Discovery Opinion: The Aftermath

co-author(s): with Todd Clement, Dan Christensen, Judy Kostura, and Matt Kita

Texas Trial Lawyers Association Webinar (Sept. 26, 2018)

Car Wreck Case Law Update: Seatbelts, Tow Trucks, & Cows in the Road

TTLA Car Wrecks Seminar, Houston, Texas (March 3, 2016)

= read opinion
Significant Cases

Galindo v. Garner, No. 05-19-00061-CV, 2019 WL 2098689 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 14, 2019, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

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.

Pettway v. Olvera, No. 14-17-00532-CV, 2018 WL 4016949 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 23, 2018, no pet. h.) (mem. op.)

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.

State of Texas v. T.S.N., 547 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. 2018)

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.

State v. T.S.N., 523 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017), aff’d, 547 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. 2018)

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.

In the Interest of P.M.K., No. 05-15-01181-CV, 2017 WL 462343 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 30, 2017, no pet.)(mem. op.)

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.

City of Houston v. Roman, No. 01-15-01042-CV, 2016 WL 3748851 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 12, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.)

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.

Poledore v. Poledore, No. 05-15-00619-CV, 2016 WL 2620648 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 6, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.)

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.

Harlingen Med. Ctr. Ltd. P’ship v. Andrade, No. 13-14-0700-CV, No. 13-15-0119-CV, 2016 WL 1613297 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi April 21, 2016, pet. dismissed)

Affirming trial court’s ruling refusing to dismiss medical malpractice case based on the defendants’ challenge to the Chapter 74 expert reports.

Okon v. Boldon, No. 02-14-00334-CV, 2015 WL 4652775 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 6, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.)

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.