Significant Victories
In re East Texas Med. Ctr., 12-17-00183-CV, 2017 WL 4675511 (Tex. App.—Tyler Oct. 18, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
Successfully defeating hospital's mandamus petition challenging a trial court order taking judicial notice of administrative rules promulgated by the Texas Medical Board.
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.
Smith v. Johnson, 05-16-01261-CV, 2017 WL 3275517 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 26, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)
Successfully defended medical providers’ appeal, challenging the plaintiff’s Chapter 74 expert reports in a case in which the medical providers’ negligence resulted in the amputation of the plaintiff’s leg.
Randell v. Galbreath, No. 11-15-00056-CV, 2017 WL 2698113 (Tex. App.⎯Eastland June 22, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op)
Successfully defended summary judgment granted in favor of lawyers against former client arising out of client's settlement of personal injury claims.
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.
D.A. v. Texas Health Presbyterian Hosp. of Denton, 514 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, pet. filed)
Reversed and rendered judgment following permissive appeal, holding that section 74.153 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which applies a lower “willful and wanton” standard of care to medical care provided in a hospital emergency room does not apply to medical care provided an expectant mother in an obstetrical unit.
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.
Tomlinson v. Weatherford, 399 P.3d 961 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017)
In complex multi-jurisdictional same-sex custody battle, reversing district court’s finding that petition should be heard in Oklahoma and remanding for adjudication of parentage of biological mother’s former domestic partner.
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.
Wright v. Menta, No. 05-15-00272-CV, 2016 WL 3141578 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 6, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
Affirming arbitration award and rejecting argument that arbitration award should be vacated based on manner in which attorney’s fees records were submitted, and rejecting argument that award regarding interest in patents was unenforceably vague.
Austin v. Coface Seguro de Credito Mexico, S.A. de C.V., 506 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied).
In appeal involving validity of abstract of judgment, court of appeals found that abstract filed under Hispanic judgment debtor's maternal surname was sufficient to give notice of the judgment to the public.
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.
Siddiqui v. Fancy Bites, LLC, 504 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied)
In a commercial fraud-by-nondisclosure case involving the development and operation of a fried chicken franchise, Houston's Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld the award of nearly $600,000 in damages--including $100,000 in exemplary damages.
In the Interest of H.S., a minor child, No. 02-15-00303-CV, 2016 WL 4040497 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 28, 2016, pet. granted) (mem. op.)
In suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) in which grandparents sought managing conservatorship over the child, court of appeals concluded that the grandparents did not have standing to file the SAPCR because they did not have actual care and control over the child for the statutory required six months.
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.
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.