Trend Offset Printing Services, Inc., v. Collin County Community College District
S.W.3d, 2008 WL 821016 (Tex.)
Brazos Elec. Power Co-op., Inc. v. Weber
2007 WL 3257495 (Tex. App.-Dallas).
Brazos Electric undertook condemnation proceedings on approximately five and one half acres of Weber's land fronting Highway 121. Weber engaged Robert Roeder to represent him in the condemnation proceedings. Roeder was successful in getting the special commissioners award set at $3.9 million, which represented a $1 million increase above the best offer made by Brazos. Brazos subsequently dismissed the case.
Brown Outdoor Advertising, LLC v. Town of Prosper, Texas and William A. Little in his Capacity as Building Official of the Town of Prosper
(Tex. App. - Dallas 2005, pet. denied).
Brown sued the Town of Prosper alleging that its municipal sign ordinance didn't extend to the Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction ("ETJ"). This firm represented the Town at trial and on appeal. In affirming the trial court's decision, the Court of Appeals held that Prosper Ordinance 02-25 prohibits the erection of commercial billboards in the Town's ETJ.
Colt v. Hamner
2005 WL 834098 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2005, no pet.).
Ms. Colt sued Ms. Hamner, a Plano Independent School District employee at the time of the incident, for defamation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court that Ms. Hamner, the firm's client, did not defame Ms. Colt or violate Sections 261.101 and 261.107 of the Texas Family Code.
Adams v. First Nat. Bank of Bells/Savoy
154 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2005, no pet.).
The firm, at the trial court, successfully defended the First National Bank of Bells/Savoy and the bank's president against numerous allegations asserted by Ms. Adams concerning a foreclosure of Ms. Adams property in Sherman, Texas. In a reported decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all of Ms. Adams claims against the firm's client.
Jones v. American Flood Research, Inc.
218 S.W.3d 929 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2007, no pet.).
American Flood Research, Inc. sought and obtained $15,000.00 in sanctions at the trial court against Mr. Jones for discovery abuse. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's sanctions against the firm's client and found that sanctions were improper.
Comm’n Ct. v. Albin
992 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1999, pet. denied).
The Commissioners Court of Grayson County refused to grant permission for the filing of a revised plat of a subdivision located in Grayson County. The firm represented the land developer in obtaining a writ of mandamus from the District Court in Grayson County ordering the Commissioner’s Court to grant his request to file the revised plat of the subdivision. The firm was successful in upholding the writ of mandamus on appeal to the Texarkana Court of Appeals and Texas Supreme Court.
Maybrey v. SandStream
124 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. App--Ft. Worth 2003, no pet.).
The firm represented SandStream, Inc., a fiberoptic network company, in obtaining injunctive relief prohibiting a potential competitor from, among other acts, making any use of SandStream’s confidential trade secret, and proprietary information. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction in a reported decision.
Greene v. Plano ISD
227 F.Supp.2d 615 (E.D. Tex 2002).
A school district employee brought a federal civil rights class action against Plano Independent School District and its superintendent, alleging they violated her substantive due process rights by allowing her workplace to become contaminated with toxic mold. The firm represented the school district and superintendent in having the District Court dismiss all claims in the initial stages of the lawsuit. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all claims.
City of Melissa v. North Collin Water Supply Corporation
56 F.Supp.2d 557 (E.D. Tex. 2003).
The firm represented the City of Melissa in a federal lawsuit against a water service association and the United States Department of Agriculture, seeking to enjoin the funding of a USDA loan relating to the water supply system. In a reported decision, the District Court agreed with the position advanced by the firm, granted the injunctive relief and denied the USDA’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The case settled subsequent to the court’s ruling.
