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
Rick Thompson, Partner
Biography
Rick Thompson joined the firm on November 1, 2018 and is an experienced civil appellate attorney who is Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
Formerly a Partner at Hankinson, LLP and an Assistant Solicitor General at the Solicitor General’s Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Rick has successfully presented numerous oral arguments in state and appellate courts throughout Texas, including the Texas Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Rick has also appeared before the United States Supreme Court in several cases. Rick’s appellate experience spans many substantive and procedural areas, including state and federal constitutional and jurisdictional issues, as well as administrative and governmental appeals. He has particular depth in issues related to sovereign immunity. Over the course of his career, Rick has represented clients that include oil and gas companies, governmental entities, and private individuals.
Rick represents clients not only in post-trial proceedings and all other aspects of the appellate process, but also during the pretrial and trial phases of litigation. Rick is often asked to collaborate with trial counsel to develop and execute pretrial and trial strategy.
Rick received his undergraduate degree cum laude from Louisiana State University and with honors and Order of the Coif from the University of Texas School of Law, where Rick also served as Executive Editor of the Texas Law Review. Following graduation from law school, Rick clerked for the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
= read publication
Publications & Presentations
= read opinion
Significant Cases
Royalty Asset Holdings II, LP v. Bayswater Fund III-A LLC, No. 08-22-00108-CV, 2023 WL 2533169 (Tex. App.—El Paso Mar. 15, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.)
Successfully reversed a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in case involving royalties owed under oil and gas lease. Discussing the legacy of the 1/8th royalty in Texas law and the estate misconception theory, the court determined that the language of a 1924 Deed reserved a floating royalty interest, not a fixed royalty interest, and remanded the case to determine the amount of damages owed to the firm’s client.
In re Guerra, No. 13-22-00305-CV, 2022 WL 4126021 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Sept. 9, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
Successfully defeated mandamus petition seeking to modify trial court’s order allowing defendant to conduct Rule 204 physical examination of the plaintiff, but requiring that it be performed by telemedicine.
Cobb v. Hansen, No. 05-19-01327-CV, 2022 WL 3499999 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 18, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.)
Successfully reversed a take-nothing judgment and remanded for a new trial in case against defendant-homeowners whose pizza oven exploded and burned Joseph Cobb. The court of appeals determined that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to submit Cobb’s negligent activity claim to the jury, which was supported by the homeowner’s request that Cobb light the oven without advising him how to do so safely and the homeowners’ failure to render aid to Cobb following the explosion.
In re Cash, No. 20-0837 (Tex. March 11, 2022)
Successfully defeated mandamus petition related to trial court’s new trial order.
Alford-Shaw v. Nicholson, No. 02-20-00387-CV, 2021 WL 2753508 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 1, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
In wrongful death case arising out of an airplane crash, Independent Executrix of pilot’s estate objected to the Texas court’s exercise of jurisdiction over her because, she argued, she was not a citizen of Texas and the pilot’s estate had been informally closed before the lawsuit was filed. The court of appeals rejected this argument, affirming the trial court’s conclusion that the Independent Executrix failed to meet her evidentiary burden to prove that her administration of the pilot’s Estate had been informally closed as a matter of law.
In re C.A., No. 02-21-00018-CV, 2021 WL 2753533 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 1, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
Successfully prevented the deposition of a severely impaired plaintiff before an examination to determine competency. An issue of first impression, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals found that Texas Rules of Evidence 104 and 601 apply to and impose a duty on trial courts to examine a deposition witness to determine his competency before the witness is deposed, and that the trial court abused its discretion by compelling the deposition without first conducting that examination.
Kemp v. Brenham, No. 05-18-01377-CV, 2020 WL 205313 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 14, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
Reversed and rendered take nothing judgment on claims of constructive eviction, finding that landlord-tenant relationship no longer existed at the time the former tenant was locked out of the property, and no evidence that the tenant abandoned the property based on the conduct of the landlord.
Barbara Tech. Corp. v. State Farm Lloyds, 589 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. 2019)
In this hail damage case, the Texas Supreme Court effectively overruled the so-called Brashears rule to preserve a Texas Prompt Pay Act claim following an appraisal award in certain circumstances. The Court was fractured with 5 justices in the majority, 1 justice concurring in part and dissenting in part, and 3 justices dissenting. Justice Green authored the opinion of the Court.
Eldorado Homeowners’ Assoc., Inc. v. Clough, No. 05-22-00198-CV, 2024 WL 20170 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 2, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op.)
Successfully defended summary judgment, including attorney’s fees, in favor of homeowners related to dispute over retaining wall and declarations making it clear that Association—and not homeowners—is obligated to maintain it.
Burford v. Howmet Aerospace, Inc., No. 14-22-00417-CV, — S.W.3d —, 2024 WL 790285 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 27, 2024, no pet. h.)
Convinced court of appeals to reverse summary judgment on causation in an asbestos case, finding that plaintiff raised a fact issue on direct causation where there were no other “plausible sources” of asbestos exposure and “reliable expert testimony show[ed] that only exposure to asbestos can cause asbestosis” and that Alcoa was the source of all the asbestos to which plaintiff was exposed.