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

tholt@dpslawgroup.com

Tammy Holt, Of Counsel

= read publication
Publications & Presentations

= read opinion
Significant Cases

Gonzales Nursing Operations, LLC v. Smith, No. 04-20-00102-CV, 2020 WL 5646482 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 23, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem.op).

Successfully dismissed interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction by independent contractor who contracted with a government entity to manage a nursing home. Claiming derivative sovereign immunity, the contractor sought to appeal the trial court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. Without reaching the substance of the derivative sovereign immunity claim, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that contracting with a government entity did not transform the contractor into a “governmental entity” entitled to appeal under the interlocutory appeal statute.

Pennington v. Fields, No. 05-19-00149-CV, 2020 WL 2611251 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 22, 2020, pet. filed) (mem. op.)

Successfully reversed summary judgment in majority shareholders’ favor and rendered summary judgment in favor of minority owner in a closely -held corporation, holding that Retiring Shareholder provision of Cross Purchase Agreement required remaining shareholders to purchase retiring shareholder’s shares.  In doing so, Court of Appeals rejected majority shareholders’ arguments that (1) provision created only an option, but not an obligation, to purchase retiring shareholder’s shares and (2) that minority shareholder was not a “retiring” shareholder because majority shareholders terminated his employment with the closely-held corporation and minority shareholder had taken employment elsewhere.

Osburn v. Baker, No. 04-19-00568-CV, 2020 WL 2441426 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 13, 2020, no pet. h.)

Successfully reversed no evidence and traditional summary judgment in a dog bite case, convincing court of appeals that Plaintiff’s claims of strict liability, negligent handling, and gross negligence were supported by deposition testimony that dog was “leery” around strangers, prone to nip at heels, and that owners considered putting the dog away when plaintiff visited, but decided not to.  The court of appeals also refused to hold that compliance with a local leash law negated an element of plaintiff’s claim when the plaintiff did not allege a violation of the leash law.