EL PASO, TEXAS, CIVIL LITIGATION ATTORNEYS
In addition to a sampling of our representative cases tried, referring attorneys and corporate counsel interested in our services may wish to reference our lawyers’ extensive list of representative cases reported.
Here are some of the significant Texas and New Mexico court cases resulting in favorable outcomes for our clients, demonstrating the civil litigation accomplishments of several of our attorneys.
Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).
In one of the first successful challenges to state laws restricting voting rights on the basis of residency, Wayne Windle persuaded the Supreme Court to invalidate a provision of the Texas Constitution that barred members of the military from voting in local elections
Zenor v. El Paso Healthcare System, Ltd., 176 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. 1999).
This was a suit brought by a pharmacist, who was fired for illegal drug use. The trial court and court of appeals rejected his claims and accepted our argument that simply completing a rehab program does not mean an employee who formerly used drugs is not a “current user” of illegal drugs under the ADA.
Martinez Tapia v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 149 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 1998).
This suit was brought by the former Minister of Finance for the State of Durango, Mexico, arising out of investments he had made in a real estate fund and unit trust organized by Chase’s off-shore affiliates in the Bahamas. The trial court and court of appeals accepted our arguments that his claims were barred by limitations due to disclosures he received at the time of the transactions, as well as our claim that the Bank’s representatives did not owe him a fiduciary duty.
Roberts v. United New Mexico Bank at Roswell, 14 F.3d 1076 (5th Cir. 1994).
Arkwright Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 844 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1988).
We successfully defended Westinghouse in a product liability/UCC warranty case brought by the boiler insurer for the El Paso Electric Company. The trial court and Fifth Circuit accepted our arguments that the disclaimers of implied warranties and exclusive remedies in the parties’ agreement were enforceable under the UCC.
Larchmont Farms, Inc. v. Parra, 941 S.W.2d 93 (Tex. 1997).
In this case, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted our argument that the exclusive remedy provisions of the New Jersey Workers Compensation Act operated to bar a non-subscriber suit for personal injuries sustained by an employee who was recruited in Texas to work for a New Jersey-based farming operation.
Texas Builders v. Keller, 928 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. 1996).
Here, we were successful in persuading the Supreme Court of Texas that the Statute of Frauds barred enforcement of an agreement, which the trial court had enforced resulting in a substantial money judgment against our client.
Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye, 907 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. 1995).
Argued the same day as Robinson v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co, this was one of the first cases in which the Supreme Court of Texas questioned the admissibility of expert testimony that was “junk science.”
Republic Ins. Co. v. Stoker, 903 S.W.2d 338 (Tex. 1995).
In this case, the Supreme Court accepted our argument that an insurer could not be subjected to extra-contractual “bad faith” liability for denying a claim for a “wrong” reason, if the policy otherwise excluded or did not provide coverage for other reasons.
El Paso Healthcare System, Ltd. v. Carmona, 160 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. App.–El Paso), pet. granted without regard to the merits and judgment vacated pursuant to settlement, 2005 Tex. LEXIS 891 (Tex. 2005); Union Pacific Railroad v. Loa, 153 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2004, no pet.); andPhelps Dodge Ref’g Corp. v. Medina, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 2366; 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 872 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2003, pet. denied).
In these three employment cases, the court of appeals reversed substantial judgments in favor of employee plaintiffs who sued our clients. The judgment in Carmona, an age discrimination case, exceeded $1.6 million; the judgment in the Loa case, a national origin discrimination case, was for more than $2.1 million; and the judgment in the Medina case, a common law wrongful discharge case, was for more than $500,000.
Ponce v. El Paso Healthcare System, Ltd., 55 S.W.3d 34 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2001, pet. denied.
In this case, both the trial court and the court of appeals accepted Gary Norton’s argument that a malpractice claim asserted against a hospital for the negligence of a physical therapist fell with the Medical Liability Improvement Act despite the fact that therapists were not included within the statutory definition of healthcare providers.
Urquidi v. Phelps Dodge Ref’g Corp., 973 S.W.2d 400 (Tex. App.–El Paso 1998, no pet).
In this case, brought under the anti-retaliation provisions of the Texas Workers Compensation Act, the court of appeals clarified its prior decisions that suggested that an employer’s mere knowledge that an employee has sustained a work-related injury is legally insufficient evidence of retaliatory motive and accepted our argument that such knowledge merely places the employee in the protected class.
Prudential Sec. Inc. v. Haugland, 973 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. App.–El Paso 1998, pet. denied).
In this case we were successful in defending Prudential Securities from claims that its disclosures to the IRS breached the confidentiality provisions of a prior settlement agreement. The court of appeals accepted our argument that the plaintiff bore the burden of demonstrating that he did not owe taxes that the IRS assessed following the settlement.
TSM AM-FM TV v. Meca Homes, Inc., 969 S.W.2d 448 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1998, pet. denied).
After the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this defamation suit against a local television station, this case was tried to a jury, which found that none of the statements complained of were false.
World Distributors, Inc. v. Knox, 968 S.W.2d 474 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1992) and Verlander Enterprises, Inc. v. Graham, 982 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1996, no pet.)
In these two cases, we persuaded the court of appeals to reverse substantial default judgments that had been entered against in our clients. Knox was a multi-million dollar judgment in a product liability case. Graham was a six-figure judgment in an employee-injury case.
Jeep Eagle Sales Corp. v. Mack Massey Motors, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. App.–El Paso 1991, writ denied) and Dick Poe Motors, Inc. v. Dickey, 802 S.W.2d 739 (Tex. App.–El Paso 1990, writ denied).
In these two warranty litigation cases, we obtained reversals of substantial, six-figure judgments obtained in by consumers in suits brought against our client, Chrysler, under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Lichte, 792 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. App.–El Paso 1990), writ denied per curiam, 825 S.W.2d 431 (Tex. 1991).
In its opinion in this case, the court of appeals quoted from our brief in holding that an uninsured motorist carrier could not defend an uninsured tortfeasor in an action brought by its policyholder. Presaging a question that would not arise for more than ten more years, the court of appeals also accepted our argument that punitive damages were not recoverable against an uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier.
For additional information on our representative reported cases, extensive trial experience in commercial litigation and ability to handle your legal needs, please call our El Paso, Texas, office at (915) 545-4900 or contact us by e-mail today.