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) (first case to hold that governmental immunity
waived regarding worker’s compensation retaliatory discharge statute)
- Pulido
v. De
Hablamos Españolnnis, 888 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, no writ)
(interpretation of the public school teacher immunity statute)
- City of
LaPorte v. Barfield, 898
S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1995) (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)
(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) (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) (sanctions on appeal)
- Morgan
v. Timmers Chevrolet, Inc., 1
S.W.3d 803 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 1999, pet denied) (reversal when the trial court improperly allows admissions
to be un-deemed during trial)
- In re
Hawk, 5 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.)
(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) (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) (voidable
attorney contingency fee contracts)
- Luker v.
Youngmeyer, 36 S.W.3d 628 (Tex.
App.—Tyler 2000, no pet)
(procedural requirements of a holographic will)
- In re
Fuselier, 56 S.W.3d 265 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, original
proceeding) (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.)
(implied dedication of a roadway)
- Johnson
v. Smith, 88 S.W.3d 729 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi, 2002, no pet.)
(first case to interpret the equine statute—cited and discussed at length in Robert
Fugate, Survey of Texas Animal Torts, 48 South Texas L. R. 427, at 464-466
(2006)).
- Dahl v.
State, 92 S.W.3d 856 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.)
(sovereign immunity and inverse condemnation)
- Russo v.
Smith International, Inc., 93
S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human
Rights Act)
- Houston
Land & Cattle Co. v. Harris County Appraisal
District, 104 S.W.3d
622 (Tex. App.—Houston 2003, pet. ref’d) (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 (the discovery rule in the legal
malpractice context)
- Sydlick v.
Reeii, 195 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.’
(pre-injury release interpretation and propriety)
- Sterling
v. Willard, 221 S.W.3d 121 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no
pet.) (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)
(procedural issues regarding trial of a removal of governmental official case)
- Little
v. Needham, 236 S.W.3d328 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont 2007, no pet.)
(interpretation of the equine statute)
- McCoy v.
Rogers, WL 1559837 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’
d) (propriety of a sheriff’s post-judgment levy and sale of real property)
- InLiner
Am, Inc. v. Macomb Funding Group, L.L.C., 244. S.W.3d 427 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007 pet dismissed) (appeal time tables regarding an interlocutory appeal)
- Gary E. Patterson & Assoc. v. Holub,, ___ S.W.3d ___ [Tex. App. Houston Dist.] 2008, pet denied, App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007 pet dismissed)
(appeal time tables regarding an interlocutory appeal)
- Lundy v Musson, 260 S.W.3d 482 Tex. App Houston ., 244. S.W.3d 427 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008 pet. denied)
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’s
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) (whether violation of the defendant’s right to a presumption of
innocence is structural error)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Licensed by the Supreme Court
of Texas, U.S. Supreme Court, Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. NOTHING CONTAINED ON THIS SITE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO EXTEND AN OFFER OF LEGAL SERVICES IN ANY RESPECT EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION. NO ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS CREATED BY VIEWING THESE PAGES, UTILIZING THE INCLUDED CONTENT, OR SIMPLY REQUESTING SERVICES BE PROVIDED. |
| Tim Hootman, Texas Appellate Attorney 2402 Pease Street Houston, Texas 77003 click to email Tel: (713) 522-3200 Fax: (713) 583-9523 Cell: (713) 366-6229 Desde México: 001-713-366-6229 |
