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



Screen Shot 2014-05-21 at 5.33.15 PM

Thad D. Spalding, Partner

= read publication
Publications & Presentations

Moderator, Juries & Courtrooms in Today’s Legal Environment

co-author(s): with Magistrate Judge Nicole Mitchell, Judge Jennifer Edgeworth, and Judge Brian Gary

Dr. Kenneth Street Law Symposium, Austin College, February 23, 2023

New Year? New Discovery Rules!

State Bar of Texas CLE, Texas Supreme Court: History & Current Practice (April 14, 2021)

New Year, New Rules: Review of Amended Discovery Rules

San Antonio Trial Lawyers Association Zoom CLE (March 18, 2021)

New Texas Discovery Rules-Are You Ready?

Texas Paralegal Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Winter 2021)

New Year, New Rules: Review of the Amended Discovery Rules

Dallas Trial Lawyers Association, January 14, 2021

Panel Discussion – New Discovery Rules

co-author(s): with Kirsten Castaneda and Andy Jones

Dallas Young Lawyers Association, January 13, 2021

Punitive Damages: A waste of time? Or a means to an end?

Texas Trial Lawyers Association Midyear-Virtual Conference, May 14, 2020

Let the Jury Charge be Your Guide

TTLA Car Wrecks Seminar 2018

Punitive Damages

State Bar of Texas CLE, Advanced Personal Injury Law Course 2017

Preservation of Error

TTLA Trial Advocacy College of Texas (April 15, 2016)

Let the Jury Charge be Your Guide

TTLA Car Wrecks Seminar 2015

The Review of New Trial Orders on Appeal

Vol. 40, No. 5, Dallas Bar Association: Headnotes (May 2015)

Emerging Appellate Issues

co-author(s): with Justices Ada Brown, David Evans, and Jim Moseley (Ret.)

Dallas Bar Association’s Bench Bar Conference, Horseshoe Bay, Texas (October 23, 2014)

Preparing, Presenting & Preserving Error in the Jury Charge

TTLA Car Wrecks CLE (October 9, 2014)

Exemplary Damages

State Bar of Texas CLE, Advanced Personal Injury Law Course 2014, Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston (July-August, 2014)

Default Judgments: Texas Supreme Court Decisions to Consider

Vol. 39, No. 2 Dallas Bar Association: Headnotes (February 1, 2014)

Ring in 2014 with a New Subrogation World Order

co-author(s): and Ben K. DuBose

Vol. 38, No. 11 Dallas Bar Association: Headnotes (November 1, 2013)

What Every Young Lawyer Should Know About Legal Writing

co-author(s): with Justice Mary Murphy and Talmage Boston

Dallas Association of Young Lawyers (March 10, 2010)

Jury Charge – New Developments in the Texas Pattern Jury Charges

In-House CLE, Hermes Sargent Bates, LLP (January 14, 2009)

Jury Selection – Commitment Questions, Rehabilitation and Allocation of Peremptory Strikes

In-House CLE, Hermes Sargent Bates, LLP (October 23, 2008)

Products Liability in Texas

America First Insurance Company (June 30, 2007)

The Benefits of Retaining Appellate Counsel Throughout Litigation

South Plains Trial Lawyers Association (April 19, 2006)

The Benefits of Retaining Appellate Counsel Throughout Litigation

Denton Trial Lawyers Association (February 16, 2006)

The Benefits of Retaining Appellate Counsel Throughout Litigation

San Antonio Trial Lawyers Association (November 17, 2005)

2003 Texas Legislative Update

Hermes Sargent Bates, LLP (Fall 2003)

Contribution and Responsible Third Party Practice:Before and After July 1, 2003

In-House CLE, Hermes Sargent Bates, LLP (June 25, 2003)

Handling the Jury Charge & Jury Charge Objections

Appellate Section Luncheon Seminar, San Antonio Bar Association (May 1, 2001)

Post-Trial Motions

Appellate Law in the New Millennium Seminar, San Antonio Bar Association Appellate Practice Section and St. Mary’s Law Journal (March 1, 1999)

Annual Survey of Tort and Insurance Law

American Bar Association Tort and Insurance Law Journal (1996-1997)

= read opinion
Significant Cases

In re Harvey, No. 02-23-00401-CV, 2023 WL 8643022 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 14, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

Successfully obtained mandamus relief after trial court denied motion to defer payment of sanction award, ordering trial court to enter a new order either (1) providing that sanction is payable only at or following entry of a final order terminating the litigation or (2) including express findings explaining why ordering that sanction be payable before entry of a final judgment does not preclude access to the courts.

In re UV Logistics, LLC, No. 01-23-00044-CV, 2023 WL 8192532 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 28, 2023, orig. proceeding)

Successfully defended trial court’s decision to order that independent neuropsychological exam of the plaintiffs be audio and video recorded.  The court of appeals found no abuse of discretion where there was evidence of special circumstances—cognitive deficits that could affect the plaintiffs’ ability to communicate about the testing with their counsel—that supported recording the exam.

Byrd v. Cornelius, 52 F.4th 265 (5th Cir. 2022)

Successfully convinced court of appeals to dismiss officers’ qualified immunity appeal for lack of jurisdiction in light of material factual disputes regarding the officers’ use of force.  The Fifth Circuit determined that video of the incident did not conclusively establish reasonable force, and that the law clearly established that officers’ use of force was excessive force in circumstances consistent with the Plaintiff’s version of events.

Crane v. City of Arlington, Tex., 50 F.4th 453 (5th Cir. 2022)

Successfully reversed trial court’s grant of summary judgment to police officer, holding that the officer was not entitled to summary judgment on his qualified immunity defense when he shot and killed an unarmed driver during a pretextual traffic stop.

Edwards v. Oliver, 31 F.4th 925 (5th Cir. 2022)

Dismissing police officer’s interlocutory appeal of qualified immunity defense in case in which Balch Springs police officer, Roy Oliver, fired into a car of teenagers leaving a party, killing Jordan Edwards.  The Fifth Circuit found that it had no jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of summary judgment because of material fact disputes regarding whether the vehicle was a threat at the time that Oliver shot into the car.

Painter v. Amerimex Drilling I, Ltd., 632 S.W.3d 156 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, no pet.)

Successfully convinced court of appeals that summary judgment based on the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision was not proper where fact issues existed as to whether killed and injured passengers’ travel from drilling site to bunkhouse originated in or related to Amerimex’s business.

Nettles v. GTECH Corp., 603 S.W.3d 63 (Tex. 2020)

Reversing plea to the jurisdiction and affirming the denial of an identical plea in another case, filed by GTECH, a private contractor hired to provide instant ticket manufacturing and services to the Texas Lottery Commission.  Following its prior opinion in Brown & Gay Eng’g, Inc. v. Olivares, 461 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. 2015), the Court determined that because GTECH had discretion with regard to game design, and the Lottery Commission did not control the manner in which that work was performed, GTECH was not entitled to immunity.

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

Poledore v. Daniel, No. 05-18-01278-CV, 2020 WL 1685333 (Tex. App.—Dallas April 7, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op.)

Successfully defeated appeal by client’s incarcerated ex-husband who complained about the notice given him of a bench trial on his partition suit, and who complained about a motion for continuance of that trial so that the ex-husband could conduct more discovery.  The court of appeals determined that the ex-husband was provided adequate notice and opportunity to appear at his trial, and that the ex-husband’s motion did not warrant a continuance of trial.

Lane v. Manfre, No. 05-18-01305-CV, 2020 WL 104625 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 9, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.)

Affirmed summary judgment in favor of ex-husband on ex-wife’s assault claims based on prior settlement agreement that includes those same claims as part of parties’ divorce.

In the Interest of C.E.C., a minor child, No. 05-17-01482-CV, 2018 WL 3062454 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 21, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.)

Successfully upholding judgment, under a clear and convincing evidence standard, terminating parental rights and imposing permanent injunction against a father convicted of child pornography, and placing the child with her grandparents.

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.

McCain v. Promise House, Inc., No. 05-16-00714-CV, 2018 WL 2042009 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 2, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.)

Successfully reversed summary judgment in favor of insured and insurer after defense counsel assigned by insurer agreed to settlement of claims but insured withdrew consent, where insurance policy was a non-consent policy which gave insurer unilateral right to settle case and insured no right to consent or, in this case, withdraw consent.

BoRain Capital, LLC v. Hashmi, 533 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, pet. denied)

Successfully challenged trial court’s grant of judgment notwithstanding a verdict following a jury trial in which the jury determined there to be no contract between BoRain and Hashmi.  The court of appeals found that the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict, reversed the trial court’s judgment, and rendered judgment that Hashmi take nothing.

Autosource Dallas, LLC v. Addison Aeronautics, LLC, No. 05-16-00838-CV, 2017 WL 2492787 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 9, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

Successfully defended summary judgment in favor of landlord for unpaid rent by commercial tenant who terminated lease early, but failed to pay full amount of rent owed.  Tenant argued that landlord did not sufficiently mitigate its damages by giving new tenant first two months free, and therefore was not required to pay rent it owed for those months.  The Dallas Court of Appeals rejected this argument.

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.

Hornbuckle v. Keller Williams Realty, No. 02-15-00398-CV, 2016 WL 7405807 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 22, 2016, no pet. h.) (mem. op.)

Dismissing appeal pursuant to vexatious litigant statute, where Hornbuckle repeatedly filed lawsuits contesting the foreclosure on a specific piece of real property in Arlington, Texas, including this case.  The court of appeals concluded that the trial court’s dismissal of the underlying lawsuit was proper, and dismissal of Hornbuckle’s appeal was proper pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Ch. 11.

Young v. Pulte Homes of Tex., L.P., No. 02-14-00224-CV, 2016 WL 4491517 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 26, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.)

In a personal injury case arising out of faulty construction of family’s new home, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment which dismissed the parents’ claims for failing to disclose the claims in bankruptcy. The court of appeals also reversed the trial court’s award of sanctions under the DTPA, finding that the children’s DTPA claims were not groundless.

Premier Pools Mgmt. Co. v. Premier Pools, Inc., No. 05-14-01388-CV, 2016 WL 4258830 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 12, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.)

In common law trademark case, upholding jury’s findings of secondary meaning, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition, and award of lost profits, disgorged profits, and permanent injunctive relief.

Luig v. North Bay Enters., Inc., 817 F.3d 901 (5th Cir. 2016).

In a breach of contract case arising out of the sale of a helicopter, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court’s sua sponte grant of summary judgment against the buyer on a notice of revocation/rejection of acceptance issue never raised by the seller, finding that the District Court abused its discretion by not considering the evidence of rejection or revocation presented by the buyer in its Rule 59(e) motion.

Blaylock v. Holland, No. 05-13-01197-CV, 2014 WL 3736210 (Tex. App.— Dallas July 14, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.)

Reversing a trial court’s refusal to award clients trial court costs following successful appeal of adverse judgment.

In re H.E. Trans, No. 05-14-00340-CV, 2014 WL 2937497 (Tex. App.–Dallas June 26, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

Denial of petition for mandamus when the defendant challenged the trail court’s new trial order entered after the defendant asked the trial court to impose constitutional due process limitations to a punitive damages award.

CKH Family Ltd. P’ship v. MGD/CCP Acquisition, LLC, No. 05-12-00573-CV, 2013 WL 5614304 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 14, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.)

Successfully defended order dismissing claims based on parties’ contractual forum selection clause.

Richardson v. Richardson, No. 05-12-01123-CV, 2013 WL 3326870 (Tex. App.— Dallas June 27, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.)

Successfully defended judgment appointing client as sole managing conservator of his children following week-long child custody jury trial.

Blaylock v. Holland, 396 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2013, no pet.)

Reversing a trial court’s award of a homeowner’s property to his neighbor by adverse possession, holding that neighbor’s assumption that homeowner’s property was part of neighbor’s backyard, and neighbor’s use of that property as part of her backyard, was legally insufficient to support the trial court’s award by adverse possession.

Plano Parkway Office Condominiums v. Beaver Properties, 246 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied)

Reversing a summary judgment in a case of first impression involving the interpretation of the Texas Condominium Act.

Williams v. Dallas County, No. 05-06-01142-CV, 2007 WL 3121670 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 26, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.)

Successfully reversed summary judgment granted in favor of self-insured workers’ compensation carrier on the issue of the claimant’s “follow-on” injury

Perez v. Kleinart, 211 S.W.3d 468 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, no pet.)   

Reversing a defense verdict in a personal injury case and remanding for a new trial.

Ex parte M.R.R., 223 S.W.3d 499 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2006, pet. dism’d)

Successfully affirmed judgment of expunction by defeating State’s argument that statutory limitation period does not apply to misdemeanor arrests

Redland Ins. Co. v. Southwest Stainless, L.P., 181 S.W.3d 509 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.)

Upheld judgment against surety on payment bond where surety complained of technical notice given to general contractor

Gibson v. Ellis, 126 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.)

Upheld jury verdict in favor of defendant attorney in legal malpractice case, including award of sanctions in favor of defendant attorney

Ter-Vartanyan v. R&R Freight, Inc., 111 S.W.3d 779 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. denied)

Upholding admissibility of expert reconstruction testimony of investigating officer

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.

In re Polaris Indus., Inc., No. 04-23-01093-CV, 2024 WL 251984 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 24, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

Successfully defended orders quashing deposition notice of minor child and second deposition notices of other family members in case involving death of child caused by rollover of Polaris UTV.

Singleton v. Casanova, No. 22-50327, 2024 WL 2891900 (5th Cir. June 10, 2024)

Successfully defeated officer’s appeal of summary judgment motion on qualified immunity defense, where a San Antonio Police Officer—attempting to conduct a “knock and talk investigation”—began shooting within seconds of opening front door of a home. The officer’s shots barely missed Taylor Singleton, hit Davante Snowden, and killed Charles Roundtree who were at the home. The Fifth Circuit determined that because there were fact issues as to whether the use of deadly force was reasonable, and that because the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, made this an obvious case in which clearly established law prohibited the use of deadly force, the officer was not entitled to summary judgment on his qualified immunity defense.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Valdez, No. 04-22-00113-CV, — S.W.3d —, 2024 WL 349295 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 31, 2024, no pet. h.).

Successfully affirmed a judgment following a jury trial in favor of an insured against his UIM carrier for his UIM benefits and attorney’s fees.  The Court of Appeals rejected State Farm’s argument that the attorneys’ fees were not “necessary” under the UDJA because of a pre-suit settlement offer, even though that offer ended up being greater than the ultimate recovery.


Scroll to Top