Significant Victories
Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Yarum, No. 05-22-01004-CV, 2024 WL 3963861 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 28, 2024, no pet.)
Successfully defended appeal of final judgment following jury verdict in uninsured/underinsured motorist case. Allstate challenged the sufficiency of evidence to support past medical expenses, various evidentiary rulings, the award of prejudgment interest, and the award of attorney’s fees under the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Dallas Court of Appeals systematically rejected every argument.
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, 690 S.W.3d 712 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2024, pet. denied)
Successfully defended appeal of final judgment following jury verdict in uninsured/underinsured motorist case. Allstate challenged the sufficiency of evidence to support past medical expenses, various evidentiary rulings, the award of prejudgment interest, and the award of attorney’s fees under the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Dallas Court of Appeals systematically rejected every argument.
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.
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 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, 682 S.W.3d 612 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2023, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]).
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), cert. denied sub nom. City of Arlington v. Crane, 144 S. Ct. 342 (2023)and cert. denied sub nom. Roper v. Crane, 144 S. Ct. 342 (2023)
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.