Tim Hootman
Texas Appellate Attorney
2402 Pease Street
Houston, Texas 77003

Tel: 713.247.9548
Fax: 713.583.9523
Cell: 713.366.6229


Texas Courts Online


El abogado Hootman habla perfectamente bien el espaol, y Ud. lo puede llamar directamente a su celular para que le conteste todas sus preguntas legales en su idioma. Si Ud. est llamando desde los Estados Unidos marque Cel. 713.366.6229, o si Ud. est llamando desde Mxico marque Cel. 001.713.366.6229.
Texas Appeals Citations - Tim Hootman

Texas Appeals Citations

Timothy Hootman, Appellate Attorney

Below is a partial listing of cases published in Texas wherein Timothy A. Hootman is listed as Counsel of  Record.  These are important because opinions that are published, such as these, effectively become part of Texas Law.  The respective Court  is considered to be the author of these opinions, not Hootman, and the respective publisher is considered to be the owner of the cited  publications.

Civil Appeals

  • Barfield v. City of LaPorte, 849 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. App.Texarkana 1993), aff’d, 898 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1995) (labor law) (first case to hold that  governmental immunity waived regarding worker’s compensation retaliatory discharge statute).
  • Pulido v. Dennis, 888 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. App.El Paso 1994, no writ) (personal injury) (interpretation of the public school teacher immunity statute).
  • City of LaPorte v. Barfield, 898 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1995) (labor law)(governmental immunity case cited in over a dozen law review articles).
  • Mitchell v. Weisner, 923 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. App.Beaumont 1996, no writ) (labor law) (setting limits on application of the  after-acquired evidence doctrine as applied to retaliatory discharge  cases).
  • Anderson v. Hood County, 958 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. App.Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (personal injury) (interpretation of the notice of injury statute under Worker’s Compensation Act).
  • Chapman v. Hootman, 999 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (breach of contract) (sanctions on appeal).
  • Morgan v. Timmers Chevrolet, Inc., 1 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet denied) (premises liability) reversal when the  trial court improperly allows admissions to be undeemed during trial).
  • In re Hawk, 5 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (heirship dispute) (motion to reopen and  motion for new trial procedural limits of the trial court).
  • Van Polen v. Wisch, 23 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (legal malpractice) (exception to the  requirement that a plaintiff prove actual innocence regarding legal  malpractice in the criminal defense context).
  • Sanes v. Clark, 25 S.W.3d 800 (Tex. App.Waco 2000, pet. denied) (attorney fee dispute) (voidable attorney contingency fee contracts).
  • Luker v. Youngmeyer, 36 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. App.Tyler 2000, no pet.) (heirship dispute) (procedural requirements of a holographic will).
  • In re Fuselier, 56 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (orig. proceeding) (family law dispute) (mandamus  regarding nunc pro tunc of a non-suit with prejudice).
  • Supak v. Zboril, 56 S.W.2d 785 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (real estate dispute) (implied dedication of a roadway).
  • Johnson v. Smith, 88 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 2002, no pet.) (personal injury horse bite case) (first case  to interpret the equine statute - cited and discussed at length in  Robert Fugate, Survey of Texas Animal Torts, 48 S. Tex. L. Rev. 427, 464 (2006)).
  • Dahl v. State, 92 S.W.3d 856 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (dispute of government taking of real  estate) (sovereign immunity and inverse condemnation).
  • Russo v. Smith Int’l, Inc., 93 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (labor law) (age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act).
  • Houston Land & Cattle Co. v. Harris County Appraisal Dist., 104 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. App.Houston 2003, pet. denied) (property tax dispute) (property tax case regarding  the validity of past increases in the appraised value of property).
  • Lewis v. Nolan, 105 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (legal malpractice) (the discovery rule in the legal malpractice context).
  • Sydlick v. Reeii, 195 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (contract dispute) (pre-injury release interpretation and propriety).
  • Sterling v. Willard, 221 S.W.3d 121 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (business litigation) (the meaning of  “costs”€ as applied to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure).
  • Ex rel Teal, 260 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. App.San Antonio 2007, pet. denied) (removal of public officer proceeding)  (procedural issues regarding trial of a removal of governmental official case).
  • Little v. Needham, 236 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (personal injury by horse) (interpretation of the equine statute).
  • McCoy v. Rogers, 240 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (real estate litigation) (propriety of a  sheriff’s post-judgment levy and sale of real property).
  • In Liner America, Inc. v. Macomb Funding Group, L.L.C., 244. S.W.3d 427 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. dism’d)  (legal malpractice) (appeal time tables regarding an interlocutory  appeal).
  • Gary E. Patterson & Assoc. v. Holub, 267 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (technicalities regarding execution on  civil judgments) (appeal time tables regarding an interlocutory appeal).
  • Lundy v. Masson, 260 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. App.Houston 14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (business litigation with complex liability and damage issues).
  • Mensa-Wilmont v. Smith Int’l, Inc., 312 S.W.3d 771 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (business litigation) (enforceability of an abstract of judgment and its release).
  • In re Pham, 314 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (orig.  proceeding) (enforceability of an  arbitration clause in attorney-client contingency fee contract).
  • Henry v. Masson, 333 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (partnership breakup) (contract  interpretation regarding dissolution of orthopedic surgery practice).
  • Gail v. Berry, 343 S.W.3d 520 (Tex. App.Eastland 2011, pet. denied) (oil and gas)  (mineral rights dispute regarding reformation of a mutual mistake in a  deed).
  • Rawhide Mesa-Partners, Ltd v. Brown McCarroll, L.L.P., 344 S.W.3d 56 (Tex. App.Eastland 2011, no pet.) (legal malpractice)  (negligent misrepresentation claim addressing whether an attorney owed a duty to disclose information).
  • InLiner Americas, Inc. v. Macomb Funding Group, L.L.C., 348 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (legal malpractice) (legal malpractice claims are not assignable to third parties).
  • Razo v. Vargas, 355 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (international child custody) (dispute regarding  the procedural propriety of how the trial court recognized a Mexican  judicial decree).
  • Farrar v. Sabine Mgmt. Corp., 362 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (personal injury) (appeal of the evidence  submitted on causation in a premise liability summary judgment  proceeding).
  • Arredondo v. Betancourt, 383 S.W.3d 730 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet) (international custody dispute and the constitutional liberty interest to travel abroad)
  • Ayala v. Ayala, 387 S.W.3d 721 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (divorce and estate division) (multi-issue appeal over the sufficiency of the evidence to support final order after divorce).
  • In re Mark Henry, 388 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet denied) (business litigation) (the trial court’s obligation to comply with the mandate from the court of appeals regarding).
  • McBride v. McBride, 396 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. filed) (post-divorce proceeding) (trial court’s discretion regarding modification of visitation, contempt and child support arrearage determinations).
  • Morgan Sec. Consulting, LLC v. Kaufman County, 397 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.) (procedural issues regarding appeal from a temporary injunction).
  • Boulanger v. Waste Mgmt. of Texas, Inc., ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. filed) (real estate litigation) (the proper methodology to be applied when construing the language contained in a deed).
  • Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. v. Republic Services, Inc., ____ S.W.3d ____ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (business litigation) (proper method that should be applied when determining prejudgment interest and the right to interest on pretrial partial tenders of payment).
  • Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. v. SGS Control Services, Inc., ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (medical care providers are not subject to the Exclusive Remedies provision contained in the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act).

Criminal Appeals

  • Anderson v. State, 866 S.W.2d 685 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d) (driving while intoxicated case regarding Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus).
  • Kugler v. State, 902 S.W.2d 594 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref’d) (assault case regarding improper use of polygraph testing during trial).
  • Ashton v. State, 931 S.W.2d 5 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet.  ref’d) (drug possession case regarding illegal search and seizure).
  • Serrano v. State, 936 S.W.2d 387 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no pet.) (driving while intoxicated case regarding use of blood test results and failure of the arresting officer to identify the accused during trial).
  • Carreras v. State, 936 S.W.2d 727 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 933  (1997) (equal protection violation and selective prosecution).
  • Sandoval v. State, 946 S.W.2d 472 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1997, pet. ref’d) (drug possession case with multiple trial issues, including affirmative links and proper admission of  evidence).
  • D.R.H. v. State, 966 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (juvenile prosecution for drug possession regarding improper admonishment at adjudication hearing).
  • Ackridge v. State, 13 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 2000, no pet.) (felony driving while intoxicated case where primary issue was conflict of trial lawyer acting as bondsman and  attorney -- discussed at length in Dayla S. Pepi and Donna D. Bloom, Take the Money or Run:  The Risky Business of Acting as Both Your Client’s Lawyer and Bail Bondsman,  37 St. Mary. L. J. 933, 995-1001 (2006)).
  • Rodriguez v. State, 21 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. App.–Houston  [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 995 (2001) (murder case - due process issues regarding the trial were discussed at length).
  • Stephens v. State, 59 S.W.3d 377 (Tex.  App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d) (drug possession case where the  propriety of the trial court’s striking defensive testimony because of Fifth Amendment invocation is discussed).
  • Stitt v. State, 102 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2003, pet. ref’d)(interfering with public duties case where the issue of the use of character testimony is discussed).
  • Miles v. State, 154 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App.–Houston  [14th Dist. 2005] (aggravated theft case where the  issue is the violation of the defendant’s presumption of innocence is discussed).
  • Miles v. State, 204 S.W.3d 822 (Tex. Crim. App.  2006), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 1496 (2007) (aggravated theft - whether violation of the defendant’s right to a presumption of innocence is structural error).
  • Ex parte Legrand, 291 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d) (habeas corpus) (multiple double jeopardy issues regarding prosecutorial misconduct).
  • Marines v. State, 292 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. ref’d) (procedural issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence in a murder prosecution).
  • Bounds v. State, 355 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (legally insufficient evidence regarding white collar crime)
  • Wilson v. State, ____ S.W.3d ____ (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. filed) (acquittal after jury conviction for criminal harassment).

For prompt attention to your criminal or civil appeal, contact the law office of Tim Hootman, Texas Appellate Attorney, at 713.247.9548, or send us an email.  You may also call Mr. Hootman directly on his cell phone at 713.366.6229.



Copyright © Timothy A. Hootman. 
All Rights Reserved.
Website Designed and Maintained by
ProWeb, Inc.