We welcome your email, but please understand that communications via email or through this website do not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between you and Fanning Harper Martinson Brandt & Kutchin, P.C or any of its attorneys. Unless we reach an agreement with regard to representation, the information you provide will not be treated as confidential or privileged, and any such information may be used adversely to you and for the benefit of current or future clients of the law firm.
SUCCESS BASED ON LONG LASTING
RELATIONSHIPS FORGED IN INTEGRITY,
EXCELLENCE, COMMITMENT AND TEAMWORK.
Fanning Harper Martinson Brandt & Kutchin, P.C. is pleased to provide you with our Fall 2011 Newsletter and Legal Update. Below you will find information regarding successes and activities of our attorneys.
Please click the hyperlinks for updates regarding Constitutional/Civil Rights, Local Government, Products Liability, Employment Law, School Law, Commercial Trucking Litigation, Premises Liability, Zoning, Land Use and Taking, and Insurance Law. Please call us with your questions or comments.
FHMBK OBTAINS SIGNIFICANT VICTORY IN FAMOUS “CANDY CANE” CASE
FHMBK attorneys Thomas P. Brandt, Joshua Skinner and David Upham obtained a significant victory before the entire assembled United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the famous “Candy Cane” case – a case involving issues of qualified immunity and free speech in elementary schools. Lead counsel Thomas P. Brandt successfully argued the case against two former solicitor generals of the U.S.: Ken Starr, currently the president of Baylor University and Paul Clement. The Fifth Circuit Court agreed that the two elementary school principals represented by FHMBK were entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ claims. Click here to ready the entire opinion.
FHMBK ATTORNEY NAMED TEXAS LAWYER’S APPELLATE LAWYER OF THE WEEK
As a result of the victory in the “Candy Cane” case, FHMBK attorney Thomas Brandt was named “Appellate Lawyer of the Week” by Texas Lawyer. To read the article naming Mr. Brandt as “Appellate Lawyer of the Week”, click here.
DISTRICT COURT VICTORIES
Thomas Brandt and John Roehm successfully represented a sheriff who was sued by a detention officer for violation of the Title VII, age and sex discrimination, and the Texas Labor Code. A motion to dismiss the sheriff was granted by the Court.
Thomas Brandt and John Roehm successfully represented a North Texas city which was sued by the railroad for a taking – i.e. destruction of personal property. The city filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction which was granted and the city was dismissed from the suit.
Marc Fanning won five Motions for Summary Judgment for his clients over the last six months. These favorable decisions were based on “no evidence” on the liability issues in slip and fall cases for a well known grocery store chain which has stores in both Tarrant and Dallas Counties.
Thomas Brandt and John Roehm successful defended several North Texas City Council members and City officials who were sued for allegedly acting without legal authority when an amended gas well permit was issued. A plea to the jurisdiction was filed on the grounds of lack of standing and immunity. The court granted the plea and dismissed the claims against these defendants.
Joshua Skinner successfully represented a Central Texas County Commissioner who was sued for malicious prosecution and defamation. The suit arose out of a heated dispute involving flooding of the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff was arrested and charged with retaliation for allegedly threatening to shoot the County Commissioner. After he was found not guilty of the criminal charges, Plaintiff sued the County Commissioner. The court granted the County Commissioner’s motion to dismiss pursuant to section 101.106 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
To find out more about these attorneys, or more about our firm, please visit our website at www.fhmbk.com.
This newsletter is established for informational purposes only. Nothing in this newsletter should be construed as individual advice, and the use of the e-mail link for communications with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship.