|
|
|
 |
|
| Highlights |
|
|
Scope of Practice | Charge Preparation | Post-Trial Motions and Direct Appeals | Amicus Briefs and Writs of Mandamus | General Appellate Matters | Clients | Representative Work
Scope of Practice
Vinson & Elkins' Appellate Practice Section was formed in 1990. Appellate lawyers handle appeals in cases tried by the firm, as well as appeals in cases tried by other law firms and complex pre-trial and trial matters. Our appellate practice includes preparing and responding to post-verdict motions; reviewing the trial record; analyzing and researching legal issues; preparing appellate briefs; presenting oral arguments; and preparing post-argument motions. Where firm lawyers are trial counsel, our appellate practice also includes preparing pre-trial and trial motions and briefing, attending trial to assist with preservation of error, and preparing and objecting to the trial court's charge.
Appellate lawyers are involved in all aspects of state and federal appellate practice, including preparing amicus briefs and filing specialized appellate proceedings, such as petitions for writs of mandamus. In addition, lawyers in this practice area are available to consult with other firm lawyers on subjects that require special appellate expertise.
Successful appeals have been argued before various federal appellate courts, the Texas Supreme Court, and a large number of intermediate appellate courts throughout the State of Texas.
Our appellate lawyers have handled appeals of numerous kinds of cases, including cases involving general commercial disputes, contract disputes, business torts, mass torts, personal injury, oil and gas, wrongful death, labor law, workers' compensation, condemnation, and tax matters.
Charge Preparation
When Vinson & Elkins lawyers are trial counsel, our appellate lawyers are often involved in preparing and objecting to the trial court's charge to the jury.
Post-Trial Motions and Direct Appeals
After a verdict has been returned, lawyers within the appellate practice area prepare post-verdict motions, review the trial record, analyze and research legal issues, prepare appellate briefs, present oral argument, and prepare post-argument motions.
Amicus Briefs and Writs of Mandamus
Our appellate lawyers are also involved in the preparation of amicus briefs and the filing of specialized appellate proceedings such as applications for writs of mandamus.
General Appellate Matters
The firm's appellate lawyers are also available to consult with other firm lawyers concerning subjects that require special appellate knowledge.
Clients
Our lawyers have handled appellate matters for private individuals, manufacturing companies, lenders, insurance companies, oil companies, gas pipeline companies, corporate shareholders, brewing companies, hospitals, bank corporations, governmental authorities, private and public schools, and religious organizations.
Representative Work
The Vinson & Elkins Appellate Section has handled all kinds of appeals in numerous state and federal appellate courts. Our appeals have involved various types of litigation matters, including matters relating to general commercial disputes, contract disputes, business torts, mass torts, personal injury, oil and gas, wrongful death, labor law, workers' compensation, condemnation, and tax disputes. We have represented both appellants and appellees, as well as both plaintiffs and defendants.
In addition to obtaining relief for our clients on appeal, we also have obtained relief in the trial court through post-verdict motions and through mediations.
A list of representative cases handled by the Appellate Section follows:
- Standard Fruit and Vegetable Company, Bright Truck Leasing, and James William Marshall v. Rueben C. Johnson, 985 S.W.2d 62 (Tex. 1998). We prevailed in this case in the Texas Supreme Court and established important principles concerning the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. After the court of appeals reversed a summary judgment in favor of Petitioners Standard Fruit, Bright Truck Leasing and Marshall on the issue whether the Plaintiff Johnson stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, we were retained to file a Petition for Review in the Texas Supreme Court on behalf of the Petitioners. The Supreme Court granted our Petition for Review on March 26, 1998, and ordered full briefing on the merits. We presented oral argument in this case to the Supreme Court on September 10, 1998, and that court reversed and rendered judgment in favor of Standard Fruit and the other defendants.
- Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Nishika Ltd., et al., 953 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1997). We prevailed in this case, which involved important principles of UCC law, in the Texas Supreme Court. We represented Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) in an appeal from a $30 million judgment against 3M based on breach of warranty. After the oral argument in the Texas Supreme Court, that court certified the critical issue of UCC warranty law to the Minnesota Supreme Court. 955 S.W.2d 853 (Tex. 1996). On the question certified by the Texas Supreme Court, the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 3M's favor. 565 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. 1997). On October 2, 1997, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the judgment against 3M, rendering judgment against two plaintiffs and remanding two plaintiffs for a new trial. 953 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1997).
- United States Brass Corp., et al. v. Andraus, 919 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. 1996). We obtained significant relief in the Texas Supreme Court for our client Shell Chemical Company and also established important legal principles relating to the DTPA. The Texas Lawyer described this case as one of the "big cases" of the term and said that this was a "hugely important DTPA case." The Supreme Court decision limited the scope of consumer status for the DTPA so as to recognize that a manufacturer of a chemical used to produce components of a polybutylene plumbing system installed in hundreds of homes cannot be held liable to the homeowner under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act for misrepresentation, where no representations by that manufacturer ever reached the homeowner.
- S&A; Restaurant Corp. v. Leal, 892 S.W.2d 855 (Tex. 1995) reversing, 883 S.W.2d 221 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1994). We were successful in persuading the Texas Supreme Court to set aside a $2 million judgment. We were retained by Steak & Ale to handle the appeal of a case in which the trial court signed a so-called "agreed judgment" of $2 million against Steak & Ale on a settlement to which Steak & Ale had previously withdrawn its consent after learning that the plaintiff, who had testified that she was confined to a wheelchair, could walk without assistance. We obtained a per curiam opinion in our client's favor in the Texas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's decision was discussed on the front page of the Wall Street Journal Business Section, Friday, February 17, 1995, Page B1 "Unsolicited Advice to the Plaintiff: Next Time Around, Try Take Out."
- Epic Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Vicki Anderson, et al., 985 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998). We successfully represented Epic Holdings, Inc. in the Texas Supreme Court in a case involving the disqualification of a law firm in a pending trial matter. The case was argued in the Texas Supreme Court on October 8, 1997, and that court held in favor of Epic Holdings, Inc.
- Arleth v. FMP Operating Company, 2 F.3d 630 (5th Cir. 1993). We successfully represented the Plaintiff Arleth in an appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit in this contract and securities fraud case in which trial counsel obtained a $9 million jury verdict in our client's favor in Federal District Court in New Orleans. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the verdict and awarded prejudgment interest on Arleth's cross-appeal.
- Industrial Clearinghouse, Inc. and Jeffrey Mims, Trustee of the Estate of Coastal Plains, Inc. v. Browning Manufacturing, Formerly a Division of Emerson Electric Co., Civil Action No. 97-11118 as consolidated with Civil Action No. 97-11119 and 98-10246 (In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit). We were retained post-verdict to represent Browning Manufacturing, a division of Emerson Power Transmission Corporation, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in connection with the preparation of post-verdict motions relating to a multi-million dollar verdict returned against Browning by a jury in a lawsuit tried by another law firm. The trial court originally entered a judgment against Browning in the amount of approximately $50 million (including prejudgment interest), but as a result of post-judgment motions and briefing prepared by Vinson & Elkins, the trial judge subsequently entered an amended final judgment of approximately $10 million. We appealed to the Fifth Circuit, and that Court reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment in Browning's favor. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Peggy Masterson Stinnett, et al., v. Colorado Interstate Gas Company, v. Mesa Operating Limited Partnership, Civil Action No. 97-10882 (In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit). In this gas royalty/breach of contract case, plaintiffs appealed a take-nothing judgment rendered in favor of Colorado Interstate Gas Company and contended on appeal that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law for more than $100 million in underpaid royalties. We were retained for the appeal to represent Colorado Interstate Gas Company. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the take-nothing judgment rendered for Colorado Interstate Gas Company and rejected all of the Plaintiffs' appellate points.
- Boyd Gaming Corporation, f.k.a. The Boyd Group and Subsidiaries, and California Hotel & Casino and Subsidiaries, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 177 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999). In this tax appeal, we represented Boyd Gaming Corporation in an appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the tax court's determination that Boyd was not entitled to deduct as a de minimis fringe benefit 100% of the costs of on-premises meals provided to employees at its four properties. Vinson & Elkins argued the appeal before the Ninth Circuit on March 11, 1999, and that court reversed the United States Tax Court and held that Boyd qualified for an exception to the 80% cap on business deductions associated with the free on-premises meals to its employees.
- Prairie Producing Co. v. Angelina Hardwood Lumber Co., 882 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1994), modified on rehearing, 885 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1994, writ denied). We were successful in persuading the Beaumont Court of Appeals to reverse and render an $80 million judgment that had been entered in Plaintiffs' favor. We were retained by Unocal to appeal an $80 million judgment against Prairie Producing, part of Unocal. The case involved a dispute over minerals and claims of fraud and breach of good faith. The case was argued to the Beaumont Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Prairie. We also were successful in defeating the plaintiff's application for writ of error to the Texas Supreme Court.
- Broom v. Welex, a Division of Halliburton, 816 S.W.2d 340 (Tex. 1992), opinion on remand, 823 S.W.2d 704 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1992, writ denied). In this case, we were successful in having a multi-million dollar default judgment set aside. This case was brought to us for appeal following a multi-million dollar default judgment entered against a Halliburton subsidiary. That default judgment was entered in the 49th District Court of Zapata County after Halliburton's pleadings had been struck as a discovery sanction. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the default judgment in a per curiam opinion and, on remand, the Court of Appeals in San Antonio wrote a second opinion favorable to Halliburton.
- Debbie McCorvey v. The Most Reverend Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, et al., No. 13-91-232-CV (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied). We obtained affirmance of a take-nothing judgment entered against the plaintiff in this case. Vinson & Elkins was retained to represent the Catholic Diocese of Galveston-Houston in a suit brought by Debbie McCorvey for negligent hiring and supervision of a diocese priest who had a sexual relationship with McCorvey. After a favorable verdict for the defendants, a take-nothing judgment was granted. On appeal, McCorvey sought reversal of the trial court's judgment. The Corpus court affirmed the trial court's judgment, and the Supreme Court of Texas denied McCorvey's application for writ of error.
- John Paul Mitchell Systems and Ultimate Salon Services, Inc. v. Randalls Food Markets, Inc. and Jade Drug Company, Inc., No. 97-12855 (In the 126th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas). We obtained a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in the trial court in this case. Following an adverse jury verdict of $12 million against Randalls Food Markets, Inc. for conspiracy to tortiously interfere with contracts between Paul Mitchell Systems and its distributors, we were retained to attempt to overturn the jury's verdict via a JNOV motion in the district court. After extensive briefing and a hearing lasting several hours, the Honorable Judge Derwood Johnson granted our motion for JNOV in its entirety and ordered that Paul Mitchell Systems take nothing, and further ordered Paul Mitchell Systems to pay Randalls' costs of court. Paul Mitchell appealed to the Austin Court of Appeals, but that court affirmed the take-nothing judgment in favor of Randalls. The Texas Supreme Court denied Paul Mitchell Systems's Petition for Review.
- Hypernet Corporation and Larry J. Barlar v. Josephthal, Lyon & Ross, Inc., No. 95-044013 (In the 152 Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas). We obtained a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in the trial court in this case. We were retained by Josephthal, Lyon & Ross, Inc., a New York brokerage house, after it sustained an adverse $10.5 million verdict in the district court. We prevailed on the district court to disregard the jury's findings and enter a take-nothing judgment for Josephthal. We presented the trial court argument on post-trial motions. The matter settled while pending on appeal.
- Thomas et al. v. Colonial Pipeline Company, et al., No. 09-98-00181-CV (In the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont). We represented Colonial Pipeline in this lawsuit in the district court in which thousands of plaintiffs sued Colonial after severe flooding in the San Jacinto River caused pipelines to be uncovered, rupture, and spill product into the floodwaters, which subsequently caught fire. The Appellate Section was responsible for the jury charge conference work on behalf of Colonial Pipeline. Vinson & Elkins successfully defended the suit of 15 trial group Plaintiffs, and the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment on January 27, 1998. Plaintiffs initially appealed this matter, but ultimately dropped their appeal.
- Trunkline Gas Company v. Huffco Petroleum Co., No.-14-92-01222-CV in the Fourteenth Judicial District Court of Texas, sitting in Houston, Texas in 1992-93. We were retained to appeal a $74 million judgment against Trunkline Gas Company, a subsidiary of Panhandle Eastern Corporation, following an adverse jury verdict for breach of a gas purchase contract, promissory reliance, fraud, and punitive damages. The case was settled on favorable terms after briefing.
- Guastella Equities, Inc. v. Rouse Co., 664 So.2d 151 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1995), writ granted, 671 So. 2d 327 (La. 1996). This case involved a $13 million judgment from an adverse jury verdict in Orleans Parish, La. We were retained by the Rouse Co. to work on the appeal to the Louisiana 4th Court of Appeals in New Orleans and to the Louisiana Supreme Court. While the Court of Appeals affirmed over a dissent, we were successful in prevailing on the Louisiana Supreme Court to take the case. The case was settled on favorable terms prior to the argument in the Louisiana Supreme Court.
|
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
|
|
>> Back to Top |
|
|
|
|
