Real Trial Lawyers for Real Problems


Warning: Use of undefined constant post_types - assumed 'post_types' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/customer/www/hop-law.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/hoplaw/sidebar-right.php on line 45

Summary Judgment

Plaintiff’s Initial Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement

Mariana Baldridge, v. Anthony Eugene Salmon, et al.

This case involves a woman who suffered serious burns and injuries to her legs and abdomen when a firework landed and exploded in her lap at an event in Johnson County, Texas. The Defendants – who promoted, organized and supervised the fireworks event – filed a motion for summary judgement, arguing that they enjoyed immunity from the Plaintiff’s claims under the Texas Recreational Use Statute, which limits their liability only to acts of gross negligence. The Plaintiff filed the following response to the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement, arguing that the Recreational Use Statute does not apply because she was not engaged in a recreational use of Defendants’ property at the time she was injured, and that therefore, the Defendants are liable for acts of negligence as well as gross negligence.

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Crown Enterprises, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgement and Brief in Support

Barnes v. City of Arlington and Crown Enterprises

This was a premises liability case where Heygood, Orr & Pearson represented the owner of a graphic design company who was driving around a curve in Arlington, Texas where his view was obstructed by overgrown trees and vegetation right next to the roadway. This vegetation blocked his view of an 18 wheeler pulling out from a parking lot just past the vegetation to the right. After rounding the corner and clearing the view obstruction, the owner of the graphic design company was confronted with an 18 wheeler stretched across both lanes. Unable to stop, he collided with the trailer of the 18 wheeler and he suffered significant injuries. Suit was filed against both the owner of the land on which the vegetation was located and also the City of Arlington since the vegetation was on a City dedicated right of way. The lot owner filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that they should be dismissed from the case because they did not control the subject vegetation and/or because they had no notice of the alleged dangerous condition. The below brief was filed by Heygood, Orr & Pearson in opposition to the motion.

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant City of Arlington’s Motion for Summary Judgement and Brief in Support

Barnes v. City of Arlington and Crown Enterprises

This was a premises liability case where Heygood, Orr & Pearson represented the owner of a graphic design company who was driving around a curve in Arlington, Texas where his view was obstructed by overgrown trees and vegetation right next to the roadway. This vegetation blocked his view of an 18 wheeler pulling out from a parking lot just past the vegetation to the right. After rounding the corner and clearing the view obstruction, the owner of the graphic design company was confronted with an 18 wheeler stretched across both lanes. Unable to stop, he collided with the trailer of the 18 wheeler and he suffered significant injuries. Suit was filed against both the owner of the land on which the vegetation was located and also the City of Arlington since the vegetation was on a City dedicated right of way. The City of Arlington filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal from the case claiming that they are entitled to governmental immunity. The below brief was filed by Heygood, Orr & Pearson in opposition to the motion.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

This case was a construction accident case where Heygood, Orr & Pearson defended a general contractor on the construction of a residence. The plaintiff claimed that he fell from the roof of the residence while installing the roof injuring his leg. Evidently, the plaintiff was an employee of a subcontractor of the roofing contractor that the Defendant general contractor hired to install the roof on the subject residence. In this summary judgment motion, Heygood, Orr & Pearson asserted that summary judgment should be granted because the general contractor had no right to control nor did it exercise any control over the installation of the roof. Under Texas law, general contractors cannot be held liable for injuries to employees of subcontractors unless they had the right to control or did in fact control the work that was being done at the time of the injury.

Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment

Donald Haning, et al v. Deborah S. Boyer, M.D., et al

This case was a medical negligence case. The Plaintiffs, represented by Heygood, Orr & Pearson, alleged that the Defendant physician assistant and his supervising physician were negligent in failing to diagnose the patient’s necrotizing fasciitis (flesh eating bacteria), which developed after a minor slip and fall days before. This condition caused her death a couple of days later. In their answer to the lawsuit, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiffs’ case was barred by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 74.153 which limits medical malpractice cases involving emergency medical care to cases where the healthcare providers were guilty of willful and wanton negligence. This motion asked the trial court to reject this defense because the medical care at issue did not meet the definition in the statute for “emergency medical care.” This brief was filed by Heygood, Orr & Pearson on behalf of their client.

Appellant’s Brief

City of Brownsville v. AEP Texas Central Company

Description: This case is a breach of contract case involving a contract to purchase an ownership interest in an electric power plant. The defendant sought summary judgment on the basis that a release agreement between the parties released all claims brought by Brownsville. After hundreds of pages of briefing and multiple hearings over an 18-month period, the trial court granted defendant’s motion. Brownsville appealed, arguing that summary judgment was improper because its narrow interpretation of the release agreement as not releasing claims for breach of the parties’ purchase and sale agreement was reasonable. The court of appeals agreed, reversing the trial court and finding that Brownsville’s interpretation of the release agreement was correct. This brief was filed by Heygood, Orr & Pearson on behalf of their client.

Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Response to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Torres v. Annett Holdings

This case was a negligence case brought against various defendants based on a catastrophic 18-wheeler crash that killed seven members of a Mexican family. The Defendants filed a summary judgment motion seeking to apply Mexican law. The motion was denied. The case later settled for a substantial sum. This brief was filed by Heygood, Orr & Pearson on behalf of their client.

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Barnett Family Limited Partnership v. Reliant Energy Services

This case arose after plaintiff became interested in purchasing a gas marketing company. Prior to borrowing $6 million to fund the purchase, plaintiff met with Reliant and received assurances that Reliant was entering into a lucrative contract with the gas marketing company. After plaintiff purchased the company based on Reliant’s assurances, Reliant refused to sign the contract, forcing the newly acquired gas marketing company to declare bankruptcy. Reliant moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppels. The court denied the motion. This brief was filed by Heygood, Orr & Pearson on behalf of their client.

Plaintiff’s Response to PWC’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Harward v. UBS Warburg

This case was a securities fraud case brought by plaintiffs against international investment bank and securities firm UBS Warburg. Plaintiffs merged their company with another company and accepted $43 million worth of the other company’s shares of stock as the sale price for the acquisition. After the transaction closed, various misrepresentations in the acquiring company’s financial statements came to light that caused the stock to plummet in value and the company to eventually be de-listed. UBS was the underwriter on the acquiring company’s IPO that had occurred shortly before it acquired the plaintiffs’ company. UBS filed a summary judgment motion arguing that it did not recklessly make any misrepresentations in the prospectus and other offering materials for the IPO and that it did not render substantial assistance to the acquiring company in carrying out its fraud. This brief was filed by Heygood, Orr & Pearson on behalf of their client.