Hon. Michael Massengale (Former)

Welcome to the web site Best Blog Hồng, At the moment best.bloghong.com will introduce you to the article Hon. Michael Massengale (Former), Let’s study extra about it with us. Hon. Michael Massengale (Former) article under

Hon. Michael Massengale (Former) joins JAMS after serving as an appellate justice on the First Court docket of Appeals in Houston. Justice Massengale has participated within the decision of 1000’s of appeals and has written greater than 600 signed opinions in a variety of authorized disputes. Throughout his time on the bench, he was recognized for his robust work ethic, well-reasoned opinions and cautious textualist strategy to deciphering statutes and contracts. His authorized opinions have a superb document of success on assessment within the Supreme Court docket of Texas. He dealt with a spread of complicated issues involving business and contractual disputes in numerous industries, together with building, employment, monetary providers, authorities, well being care, oil and gasoline, {and professional} legal responsibility. Since he left full-time judicial service, appellate practitioners have sought out Justice Massengale’s help for appellate moot arguments and session on quite a few appellate issues in federal courts of appeals, the Supreme Court docket of Texas and intermediate Texas appellate courts, together with mandamus and interlocutory appellate reduction.

Earlier than his appointment to the appellate courtroom, Justice Massengale practiced regulation as a trial companion at Baker Botts. He targeted totally on complicated business disputes within the areas of economic, securities, chapter, antitrust, tax and tort litigation, predominantly representing purchasers in energy-related industries.

Studying: Michael massengale texas supreme courtroom

Justice Massengale serves by appointment of the Supreme Court docket of Texas as a commissioner on the Texas Entry to Justice Fee, which develops and implements initiatives designed to increase entry to, and improve the standard of, justice in civil authorized issues for low-income Texans. He’s a fellow of the Texas and Houston Bar Foundations and an elected member of the American Regulation Institute.

ADR Expertise and {Qualifications}

Justice Massengale has intensive expertise within the decision of complicated business and contractual disputes throughout numerous practices and industries, together with:

  • Appellate
  • Arbitration
  • Banking
  • Enterprise and Business
  • Building
  • Employment
  • Vitality and Utilities
  • Well being Care
  • Governmental Entities
  • Insurance coverage
  • Oil and Gasoline
  • Private Damage/Torts
  • Skilled Legal responsibility
  • Actual Property

Justice Massengale has intensive expertise on each side of the bench, having represented purchasers as an advocate in trials and arbitrations throughout his time in non-public follow and having authored tons of of appellate opinions.

Consultant Issues

Arbitration

  • S.C. Maxwell Household P’ship, Ltd. v. Kent, 472 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.): Affirming denial of movement to compel arbitration when movant disputed formation of alleged contract containing arbitration clause and due to this fact couldn’t fulfill statutory burden to show existence of settlement to arbitrate
  • Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Baker Hughes Inc., 355 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.): Exercising jurisdiction over attraction from interlocutory order denying movement to compel arbitration and confirming sitting arbitration tribunal’s jurisdiction to find out arbitrability of specific disputes
  • W. Dow Hamm III Corp. v. Millennium Revenue Fund, L.L.C., No. 01-12-00313-CV, 2013 WL 978263 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 12, 2013, pet. denied): Affirming trial courtroom’s affirmation of arbitral award and rejection of arguments below FAA that arbitrator was biased and exceeded authority by making errors of regulation and reality
  • Served as arbitrator on two issues associated to fraud claims and claims below California shopper safety, unfair competitors, and false promoting statutes in opposition to an organization offering on-line providers
  • Served as arbitrator on a matter associated to claims of breach of contract and the responsibility of excellent religion and honest dealing below California regulation, which additionally included an arbitrability dispute, in opposition to an organization offering on-line providers
  • Represented a serious oil-and-gas firm in a dispute over the interpretation of a tax sharing settlement dispute, in an advert hoc arbitration and in associated Delaware Chancery Court docket litigation
  • Represented litigants in a number of NASD arbitrations involving claims in opposition to banks and monetary advisors

Learn extra: Deborah Thomas

Banking

  • Contractors Supply, Inc. v. Amegy Financial institution Nat’l Ass’n, 462 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.): Making use of Uniform Business Code (UCC) to resolve buyer dispute with financial institution over accountability for bookkeeper’s unauthorized transactions
  • Morlock, L.L.C. v. Financial institution of New York, 448 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied): Affirming declaratory judgment in favor of mortgage lender in residential residence foreclosures dispute
  • Vazquez v. Deutsche Financial institution Nat. Tr. Co., N.A., 441 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.): Reversing dismissal of home-owner’s problem to residence foreclosures for purported lack of standing

Enterprise and Business

  • Peterson Group, Inc. v. PLTQ Lotus Group, L.P., 417 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied): Reversing awards of damages in opposition to restricted companions, as purported alter egos, for contract legal responsibility of restricted partnership
  • Saden v. Smith, 415 S.W.3d 450 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet denied): In dispute between shareholders of carefully held company, affirming legal responsibility discovering for breach of fiduciary responsibility, and partially vacating damages to the extent awarded in violation of one-satisfaction rule
  • Sonwalkar v. St. Luke’s Sugar Land P’ship, L.L.P., 394 S.W.3d 186 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.): Interpretation of voting provisions of partnership settlement in context of tried termination of particular person docs’ pursuits in hospital partnership
  • Represented board of administrators of main oil-and-gas firm in jury trial of shareholder class motion alleging breach of fiduciary duties in sale of firm to main worldwide oil-and-gas firm, primarily involving valuation of firm
  • Represented company audit committees in Delaware Chancery Court docket litigation difficult mergers and acquisitions within the power {industry}
  • Represented publicly traded firms, primarily within the power {industry}, in class-action securities fraud instances

Building

  • CCC Group, Inc. v. S. Cent. Cement, Ltd., 450 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.): Building dispute over collapsed cement-storage warehouse; held proof enough to assist breach of contract and causation findings, however inadequate to assist jury’s award of damages for future restore prices
  • CBM Engineers, Inc. v. Tellepsen Builders, L.P., 403 S.W.3d 339 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied): Cross-appeals over utility of certificate-of-merit necessities to varied damages claims arising from design and building of retreat and convention heart
  • Carter & Burgess, Inc. v. Sardari, 355 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.): Utility of certificate-of-merit requirement to allegations of negligent venture administration by architectural agency
  • Tellepsen Builders, L.P. v. Kendall/Heaton Assocs., Inc., 325 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied): Building insurance coverage dispute; interpretation of waiver-of-subrogation clause

Employment

  • Texas Dep’t of Household & Protecting Companies v. Mitchell, 510 S.W.3d 199 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.): Affirming denial of state company’s declare of sovereign immunity in opposition to declare of retaliatory discharge
  • Schlumberger Ltd. v. Rutherford, 472 S.W.3d 881 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.): Affirming denial of movement to dismiss allegations that in-house counsel misappropriated commerce secrets and techniques based mostly on proof establishing prima facie case
  • Miles v. Lee Anderson Co., 339 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.): Race and national-origin discrimination go well with

Vitality and Utilities

  • Tanya L. McCabe Belief v. Ranger Vitality LLC, 531 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied): Interpretation of legislative revisions to correction-instrument statutes within the Texas Property Code as utilized to oil-and-gas leases
  • Rosenthal v. Doherty & Doherty, L.L.P., No. 01-12-01017-CV, 2014 WL 953547 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 11, 2014, no pet.): Dispute over cost for repairs to grease drilling rig
  • In re Valero Ref.-Texas, LP, 415 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, orig. continuing): Granting mandamus reduction in dispute over appraisal district’s discovery request for oil refinery’s commerce secrets and techniques related to property valuation
  • In re Hardwick, 426 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. continuing): Venue dispute in litigation between oil-and-gas manufacturing firm and former landman
  • Represented numerous power utilities, together with era, transmission, distribution and sale of electrical energy, in addition to retail supply of pure gasoline

Governmental Disputes

  • ETC Mktg., Ltd. v. Harris County Appraisal Dist., 476 S.W.3d 501 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015), aff’d, 528 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. 2017): Affirming appraisal of worth of saved pure gasoline
  • In re Valero Ref.-Texas, LP, 415 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.): Dispute over discovery of commerce secrets and techniques in ad-valorem tax valuation dispute
  • State v. Momin Properties, Inc., 409 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied): Gasoline station’s inverse condemnation declare arising from building of overpass

Learn extra: Trails of chilly metal bonding information

Well being Care

  • Patel v. St. Luke’s Sugar Land P’ship, L.L.P., 445 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied): Requiring issuance of injunction to protect establishment pending decision of administration dispute between docs and hospital
  • Sonwalkar v. St. Luke’s Sugar Land P’ship, L.L.P., 394 S.W.3d 186 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.): Interpretation of voting provisions of partnership settlement in context of tried termination of particular person docs’ pursuits in hospital partnership
  • Methodist Hosp. v. German, 369 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied): Reversing medical malpractice judgment in opposition to hospital based mostly on inadequate proof that affected person’s remedy was adversely affected by actions of nurses or by failure to coach them
  • In re Higby, 325 S.W.3d 740 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, orig. continuing): Medical peer assessment communications privilege dispute

Insurance coverage

  • Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Krolczyk, 408 S.W.3d 896 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied): Rendering declaratory judgment that insurer owed responsibility to defend below business common legal responsibility (CGL) coverage
  • In re Texas Windstorm Ins. Ass’n, 417 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, orig. continuing): Trial courtroom abused discretion by disqualifying insurer’s lawyer for purported battle of curiosity based mostly on lawyer’s prior relationship and communications regarding insurance coverage regulation with claimant’s lawyer
  • Oleksy v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 410 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied): Reversing abstract judgment that home-owner’s insurance coverage coverage didn’t cowl snowmobile accident and that insurer had no responsibility to defend or indemnify the insured
  • Tellepsen Builders, L.P. v. Kendall/Heaton Assocs., Inc., 325 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied): Building insurance coverage dispute; interpretation of waiver-of-subrogation clause
  • Represented litigant in dispute over interpretation of offshore power bundle coverage as utilized to hurricane-damaged offshore platform and effectively

Worldwide

  • Bautista v. Trinidad Drilling Ltd., 484 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.): Affirming particular look granted in favor of drilling firm’s Canadian oblique mum or dad firm
  • Brenham Oil & Gasoline, Inc. v. TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co., 472 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.): Affirming discussion board non conveniens dismissal of tortious interference declare in opposition to Italian oil firm regarding Togolese drilling prospect
  • Richardson v. Newman, 439 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.): Affirming discussion board non conveniens dismissal of shareholder spinoff go well with in opposition to Swiss offshore-drilling firm
  • Represented home mining firm in multi-billion-dollar fraudulent declare in opposition to its overseas company mum or dad, primarily involving the valuation of a controlling curiosity in a overseas mining firm
  • Represented overseas authorities official in opposition to tort claims filed in the USA

Private Damage/Torts

  • Barnes v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 395 S.W.3d 165 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied): Denial of employees’ compensation declare didn’t bar subsequent wrongful-death declare based mostly on allegation of employer’s gross negligence
  • Airgas-Sw., Inc. v. IWS Gasoline & Provide of Texas, Ltd., 390 S.W.3d 472 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied): Holding proof legally inadequate to assist declare for malicious prosecution on account of lack of proof of particular harm
  • Richards v. Transocean, Inc., 333 S.W.3d 326 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.): Reversing abstract judgment in go well with alleging negligent failure to supply protected office on offshore drilling rig
  • Represented litigants in energy-industry-related personal-injury claims

Skilled Legal responsibility

  • Arbitration of dispute between a global authorized supplier and a departed companion over cost of a bonus, requiring interpretation of the agency’s partnership settlement and evaluation of moral guidelines relevant to the authorized occupation
  • In re Haynes & Boone, LLP, 376 S.W.3d 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. continuing): Confirming state courtroom jurisdiction over declare of lawyer malpractice in federal antitrust matter
  • Pitts & Collard, L.L.P. v. Schechter, 369 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.): Referral-fee dispute

Actual Property

Learn extra: James r winchester oklahoma supreme courtroom

  • Vance v. Popkowski, 534 S.W.3d 474 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied): Enforcement of residential deed restriction and related nonwaiver provision, prohibiting operation of a enterprise from a single-family residence
  • Wheelbarger v. Touchdown Council of Co-Homeowners, 471 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied): Dispute between condominium homeowners and affiliation board concerning repairs to hurricane harm
  • Internacional Realty, Inc. v. 2005 RP W., Ltd., 449 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied): Interpretation of “put” treatment specified by business actual property buy settlement


Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.