A key component of Touchstone’s litigation practice is its significant experience in representing clients in state and federal appellate courts. Though a verdict may have been reached (usually in our favor), a case is not over until the appellate process is complete.  While principally focusing on appeals of cases tried within the firm, our respected appellate lawyers are often hired to take over outside cases when they reach the appellate stage.

The appellate process requires extensive and thorough preparation, attention to detail, knowledge, and experience, which are all hallmarks of Touchstone.  Success at the appellate level not only requires experience and talent at researching and writing appellate briefs but preparing and presenting oral argument.

Our clients demand appellate lawyers who are experienced in the nuances of Texas law, and who have the ability to think creatively to win the case. At the forefront of the appellate practice is our partner, Dawn Woelfel Hansen, whose experience in Texas appellate matters serves as a solid core to Touchstone’s appellate practice. In addition to Ms. Hansen, Touchstone is fortunate to have other seasoned attorneys whose vast appellate experience contributes greatly to Touchstone’s appellate talents. Our appellate attorneys consistently achieve excellent results.

[intlink id=”633″ type=”page”]Dawn W. Hansen[/intlink]

Representative case:

  • Apache Industrial Painting v. Gulf Copper & Manufacturing Corp., 2010 WL 1611450 (Tex. App. -Houston [!” Dist.] April 22, 2010)(successfully reversed summary judgment in favor of Gulf and rendered judgment in favor of Apache because neither Apache nor Gulf was entitled to indenmity from the other)
  • Zookv. Brookshire, 302 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.)(successfully affirmed summary judgment because no fact issue existed that defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition on its property)
  • Energy  Service  Co.  v  Superior  Snubbing  Services,  236  S.W.3d  190  (Tex. 2007)(subscribing employer’s agreement to indemnifY a person’s contractor may be enforced even though agreement not executed by that contractor)
  • T.X C. C. v. Wilson/Barnes, 233  S.W.3d 562  (Tex. App. – Dallas 2007, pet. denied)(in a waiver of subrogation clause under owner/contractor contract case, successfully affirmed summary judgment because T.X. C.C. maintained post­ construction insurance, which paid for damages; T.X. C.C’s  subrogee claim is barred)
  • In Re Ben E. Keith Co., Inc., 198 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth 2006, orig. proceeding)(in a food poisoning case, successfully affinned court’s bifurcation of claims rather than severing, fraudulent inducement, indenmity and fraud claims)
  • Ramirez v. Hariri, 165 S.W. 3d 972 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.)(successfully affirmed special appearance contesting personal jurisdiction; undercapitalization of corporation, alone, was insufficient to disregard corporation’s corporate status, and thus, corporation’s contacts could not be imputed to corporation’s shareholders as a basis for personal jurisdiction)
  • McKiddy v. Trinity Lloyd’s Ins. Co., 155 S.W.3d 307 (Tex. App.- Dallas 2004, pet. denied)(successfully  affirmed summary judgment that plaintiff was not occupying covered vehicle because evidence showed that plaintiff had exited covered vehicle and was approximately 10 feet away from it when he was struck by another vehicle; contract term “occupying” is not ambiguous as matter of law because Texas courts have applied the meaning of “getting in, on, out or off’ to “occupying”)
  • In   re   Shell   Oil,   128   S.W.3d   694   (Tex.   App.   – Beaumont   2004,   orig. proceeding)(mandamus filed as to improper venue, conditionally granted finding that court abuses its discretion by refusing to transfer venue of the case because venue of subsequent  suit involving the same parties and subject matter is governed by the venue determination in the initial suit)
  • Batte v. Hendricks, 137 S.W.3d 790 (Tex. App.- Dallas 2004, no pet.)(successfully affirmed summary judgment because no issue of fact existed as to whether the defendant  knew  or  should   have  known   that  the  driver  was  an  unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless driver)
  • Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Maxey, 110 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. App.- Houston [1″ Dist.] 2003, pet. denied)(successfully affirmed judgment that insurer had no duty to indemnify trailer  company  and  its  employee  responsible  for  maintenance  by operation of auto exclusion clause, and concurrent causation doctrine did not require insurer to indemnify trailer company)
  • In Re Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 64 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding)(mandamus  conditionally granted finding that trial court abused its discretion by denying severance since the insurer had a substantial right to exclude evidence of its settlement offers and negotiations in the trial of the UIM claim)

Comments are closed.