August 25, 2011 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger successfully represented a partner in a major Texas law firm who was sanctioned by a trial court for allegedly accusing opposing counsel of suborning perjury and ordered to purchase a half-page apology in the Texas Lawyer.  The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the sanction in its entirety, holding that the lawyer had not accused opposing counsel of suborning perjury and that the trial court’s order reflected “both an erroneous assessment of the evidence and a misapplication of the law on subornation of perjury.”  Both the sanction order and the successful appeal received extensive coverage in theTexas Lawyer and other legal publications. Rodriquez v. Mumbo Jumbo, 347 S.W. 3d 924 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2011, no pet.).

August 5, 2011 in Case Summaries

Working closely with trial lawyers Lee Brown, Eric Porterfield, and Mary Alice McLarty, Jeff Levinger successfully represented the family of Andrea Ruiz, who died when the driver’s side airbag in her Kia Spectra failed to deploy in a frontal collision.  The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment that the Ruiz family obtained after a three-week jury trial, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of a defect in the design of the airbag circuitry that caused the nondeployment.  The court also held that Kia was not entitled to claim a presumption of “no-defect” under section 82.008 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because there is not a federal safety standard that governs the design of airbags or the risk that an airbag would not deploy in a crash. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the rulings on the sufficiency of the evidence and the inapplicability of the no-defect presumption, but remanded for a new trial based on the trial court’s admission of “other similar incidents” evidence. Kia Motors Corp. v. Ruiz, 348 S.W. 3d 465  (Tex. App. — Dallas Aug. 5, 2011), rev’d in part,  432 S.W. 30 865 (Tex.2014).

March 28, 2011 in Case Summaries

In a closely-watched case involving shareholder oppression, the Dallas Court of Appeals upheld a judgment in favor of Levinger PC client Ann Rupe based on the jury’s finding that she had been oppressed by the officers and directors of Rupe Investment Corporation when they refused her request to meet with potential purchasers of her stock.  The appellate court also upheld the trial court’s order requiring the defendants to buy back Ms. Rupe’s stock as an equitable remedy for their misconduct. In a landmark ruling that redefined the text of shareholder oppression in Texas, the Supreme Court held that the conduct at issue did not satisfy the new definition of oppression, but remanded the case for further analysis of Ms. Rupe’s fiduciary duty claim. Ms. Rupe was represented at trial by Steve Aldous and Charla Aldous.  Ritchie v. Rupe, as Trustee for the Dallas Gordon Rupe, III 1995 Family Trust, 339 S.W.3d 275 (Tex. App. — Dallas), rev’d in part, 443 S.W. 30 856 (Tex.2014).

December 21, 2010 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger represented defendants Hampden Corporation and Fantasy Diamond Corporation in an appeal of a judgment after a bench trial awarding the plaintiff over $750,000 in damages for breach of a commission agreement. Following oral argument, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that the parties tried the breach of contract action by consent and by granting the plaintiff leave to file an amended petition after the trial to assert that cause of action. The court thus vacated the judgment in its entirety and remanded the case to the trial court to allow it to consider the evidence at trial in light of the claims pleaded in the plaintiff’s earlier-filed petition. Hampden Corp. v. Remark, Inc., 331 S.W.3d 489 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2010, pet. denied).

December 7, 2010 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger represented defendants Paul Williams and Hughes-Roth Financial Group in an appeal of a default judgment awarding the plaintiff Nexplore Corporation over $300,000 in damages and attorney’s fees and the right to cancel Williams’s 10 million shares of stock in Nexplore valued at approximately $7 million.  The Dallas Court of Appeals held that the trial court never obtained personal jurisdiction over the defendants because substituted service was not property authorized, and that the default judgment rendered against the defendants was therefore void.  The court thus reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.  Williams v. Nexplore Corp., No. 05-09-00621-CV,  2010 WL 4945364 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2010, pet. denied.) (mem. op.)