Representative Cases
Providing our services to trial lawyers as well as to corporations, non-profits, and individuals.
Bay, Ltd. v. Mulvey, 686 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. 2024)
The Texas Supreme Court held that an agreement between employer and lessee was a settlement for purposes of the one-satisfaction rule, even though lessee was only required to make monthly payments and because the amount of the settlement not allocated to other injuries exceeded judgment against defendant, defendant was entitled to a take-nothing judgment.
Elephant Insurance Company, LLC v. Kenyon, 644 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2022)
The Texas Supreme Court held that an insurance company owes a motorist and her husband no duty to process a single-vehicle accident claim without requesting that the insured take photographs or to issue a safety warning along with any such request, reversing the court of appeals’ judgment.
In re Puig, 351 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)
Within the context of competing lawsuits involving property owned by a decedent’s estate, the Texas Supreme Court clarified Texas law to explain that—contrary to some Texas Courts of Appeals’ decisions—the competing lawsuits implicated principles of dominant jurisdiction as opposed to exclusive jurisdiction.
Within the context of competing lawsuits involving property owned by a decedent’s estate, the Texas Supreme Court clarified Texas law to explain that—contrary to some Texas Courts of Appeals’ decisions—the competing lawsuits implicated principles of dominant jurisdiction as opposed to exclusive jurisdiction.
In re Labatt Food Serv., L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding)
In a case of first impression, the Texas Supreme Court held that a decedent’s agreement to arbitrate is binding on his wrongful death beneficiaries, even if they were not signatories to the arbitration agreement.
In a case of first impression, the Texas Supreme Court held that a decedent’s agreement to arbitrate is binding on his wrongful death beneficiaries, even if they were not signatories to the arbitration agreement.
In re Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 198 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)
Successfully sought mandamus relief in the Texas Supreme Court compelling employee to arbitrate her retaliatory discharge claim against former employer where even though she did not sign an arbitration agreement, the evidence established that she received and understood written acknowledgement that by continuing her employment she accepted employer’s arbitration policy.
Successfully sought mandamus relief in the Texas Supreme Court compelling employee to arbitrate her retaliatory discharge claim against former employer where even though she did not sign an arbitration agreement, the evidence established that she received and understood written acknowledgement that by continuing her employment she accepted employer’s arbitration policy.
In re Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 186 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)
Successfully sought mandamus relief in Texas Supreme Court compelling employee to arbitrate defamation claim against her former employer where arbitration agreement required arbitration of personal injury claims arising from termination.
Successfully sought mandamus relief in Texas Supreme Court compelling employee to arbitrate defamation claim against her former employer where arbitration agreement required arbitration of personal injury claims arising from termination.
Spradlin v. Jim Walters Homes, Inc., 34 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. 2000)
In a case of first impression, the Texas Supreme Court construed in client’s favor recent amendments to the Texas Constitution permitting home equity lending and held that certain borrower protections imposed by those amendments applied only to improvements to existing property and not to new construction.
In a case of first impression, the Texas Supreme Court construed in client’s favor recent amendments to the Texas Constitution permitting home equity lending and held that certain borrower protections imposed by those amendments applied only to improvements to existing property and not to new construction.
Texas Court of Appeals
Consultants in Pain Medicine, PLLC v. Ellen Boyle Duncan, PLLC, __ S.W.3d __, 2024 WL 1079233 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2024, no pet. h.)
The Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in favor of defendants dismissing plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act but remanded the cause for a determination of defendants’ attorney’s fees and costs.
In re McGowan, No. 03-22-00726-CV, 2023 WL 150426 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
Successfully sought mandamus relief compelling district court to abate a trust suit where related probate suit was filed first, giving county court at law dominant jurisdiction.
H-E-B, LP v. Saenz, No. 01-20-00850-CV, 2021 WL 4733460 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 12, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiff who electronically signed arbitration agreement failed to prove that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable.
Estate of Burns, 619 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2020, pet. denied)
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment holding that a motion to dismiss was the proper vehicle to address standing in a probate proceeding; heirs of the testator’s predeceased cousin did not have standing to pursue probate claim; and heirs of testator’s predeceased cousin were not entitled to leave to amend the dismissed probate claim.
Shannon Medical Center v. Triad Holdings III, L.L.C., 601 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.)
The Court of appeals reversed a disgorgement-of-profits award to counter-plaintiff where counter-plaintiff presented no evidence of the amount of profits obtained as a result of the breach of a fiduciary’s duty.
Chabot v. Estate of Sullivan, 583 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. App.—Austin 2019, pet. denied)
The Court of Appeals held the trial court’s order appointing individual as temporary administrator of estate was not void for want of jurisdiction.
In re Schmidt, No. 04-18-00077-CV, 2018 WL 2121592 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 9, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
Successfully sought mandamus relief from order disqualifying attorney where relators waived their right to disqualify attorney by delaying filing motion to disqualify until almost nine months after the alleged conflict arose.
City of San Antonio v. Casey Industrial, Inc., No. 04-14-00429-CV, 2016 WL 320504 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 27, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
On rehearing, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s order denying the City’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction where plaintiff pled facts and provided evidentiary support establishing a claim for recovery of amounts due and owed under a contract, falling within statutory waiver of City’s immunity.
City of Houston v. Little Nell, 424 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied)
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order denying the City of Houston’s plea to the jurisdiction, concluding that property owners could pursue claim against the city’s public works director for ultra vires acts relating to the assessment of drainage fees.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order denying the City of Houston’s plea to the jurisdiction, concluding that property owners could pursue claim against the city’s public works director for ultra vires acts relating to the assessment of drainage fees.
Lisitsa v. Flit, 419 S.W.3d 672 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied)
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order denying clients’ special appearance, holding that clients did not waive their special appearance and their purported contacts with Texas were insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction on the trial court.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order denying clients’ special appearance, holding that clients did not waive their special appearance and their purported contacts with Texas were insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction on the trial court.
In re HEB Grocery Co., L.P., 375 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding)
The Court of Appeals granted requested mandamus relief in premises liability/slip and fall case, holding that plaintiff’s discovery requests for information relating to incidents at stores other than where the incident in question occurred were overbroad.
The Court of Appeals granted requested mandamus relief in premises liability/slip and fall case, holding that plaintiff’s discovery requests for information relating to incidents at stores other than where the incident in question occurred were overbroad.
Geis v. Colina Del Rio, LP, 362 S.W.3d 100 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. denied)
The Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in client’s favor awarding damages for breach of architectural contract and for rescission of that contract. In affirming the judgment, the Court of Appeals rejected in pari delicto and waiver defenses and found that the damages evidence supported the trial court’s judgment.
The Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in client’s favor awarding damages for breach of architectural contract and for rescission of that contract. In affirming the judgment, the Court of Appeals rejected in pari delicto and waiver defenses and found that the damages evidence supported the trial court’s judgment.
LaSalle Pipeline, L.P. v. Donnell Lands, L.P., 336 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. denied)
The Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in favor of landowner in condemnation action, holding that expert’s testimony provided sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s finding of damages to the remainder caused by a pipeline easement.
The Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in favor of landowner in condemnation action, holding that expert’s testimony provided sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s finding of damages to the remainder caused by a pipeline easement.
In re HEB Grocery Co., L.P., 299 S.W.3d 393 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2009, orig. proceeding).
Successfully sought mandamus relief compelling arbitration of employee’s work injury claims; the Court of Appeals held that arbitration agreement was not illusory where any amendment to employer’s work injury benefit plan could not apply if employer had notice of claim on date of amendment and plan required 10 days’ notice of amendment or termination.
Successfully sought mandamus relief compelling arbitration of employee’s work injury claims; the Court of Appeals held that arbitration agreement was not illusory where any amendment to employer’s work injury benefit plan could not apply if employer had notice of claim on date of amendment and plan required 10 days’ notice of amendment or termination.
Sonterra Capital Partners, Ltd. v. Sonterra Property Owners Ass’n, Inc., 216 S.W.3d 417 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 2006, pet. denied)
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of client homeowner’s association, holding that owners of apartment complex were owners of commercial property and subject to assessments under association’s declaration of covenants.
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of client homeowner’s association, holding that owners of apartment complex were owners of commercial property and subject to assessments under association’s declaration of covenants.
City of San Antonio v. Butler, 131 S.W.3d 170 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 2004, pet. denied)
Successfully argued that City of San Antonio charter language providing that City could “sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded” did not waive sovereign immunity, but rather outlined City’s authority as a corporate body.
Successfully argued that City of San Antonio charter language providing that City could “sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded” did not waive sovereign immunity, but rather outlined City’s authority as a corporate body.
Edwards v. Silva, 32 S.W.3d 713 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 2000, pet. denied)
In suit by employee and wife for personal injuries employee sustained in one-car accident on the way home from drinking with his manager, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of employer and manager, holding that employer did not affirmatively control employee’s behavior such that it owed a duty to employee to prevent him from injuring himself due to intoxication, and in capacity as a corporate officer, manager had no duty separate and apart from employer’s duty.
In suit by employee and wife for personal injuries employee sustained in one-car accident on the way home from drinking with his manager, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of employer and manager, holding that employer did not affirmatively control employee’s behavior such that it owed a duty to employee to prevent him from injuring himself due to intoxication, and in capacity as a corporate officer, manager had no duty separate and apart from employer’s duty.