Civil Appellate

Overview

Michael Eady is a civil appellate attorney with an extensive background representing clients at trial for the purpose of anticipated appeals. He is Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. His practice consists of appearing before the Texas Supreme Court and intermediate Appellate Courts of Texas.

Representative Experience

  • Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 250 (Tex. 2007). Successfully changed over 100 years of law pertaining to the submission of certain jury charge definitions. This opinion culminated the error preservation strategy for multiple cases developed years before this case was tried.
  • Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 234 S.W.3d 642, 50 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 965 (Tex.2007). Successfully obtained an affirmance of lower court’s judgment interpreting an agreement between counsels.
  • In re Ford Motor Co., 211 S.W.3d 295, 50 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 291 (Tex. 2006). Successfully protected confidentiality of Volvo Car documents, overturning contrary rulings by the trial and intermediate appellate court.
  • Land Rover U.K., Ltd. v. Hinojosa, 210 S.W.3d 604, 50 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 236 (Tex. 2006). Successfully overturned both trial court and intermediate appellate court’s decision allowing a $100,000 ad litem fee.
  • In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 808 (Tex. 2005). Successfully overturned both the trial court and intermediate appellate court’s decision denying a mandatory legislative trial continuance.
  • Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 266 (Tex. 2004). Successfully overturned intermediate appellate court’s holdings on circumstantial proof in product liability fire loss case.
  • Dallas Cnty. Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Bossley, 968 S.W.2d 339, 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 653 (Tex. 1998), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 541 (1998). Successfully upheld lower court’s rulings protecting psychiatrists from liability in excess of the tort claims act limits.
  • CMMC v. Salinas, 929 S.W.2d 435, 39 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1043 (Tex.1996). Successfully overturned intermediate appellate court’s holdings concerning personal jurisdiction of Texas courts over a French Wine press manufacturer.
  • American Gen. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Vandewater, 907 S.W.2d 491, 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 877 (Tex. 1995). Successfully overturned intermediate appellate court’s holdings on the scope of a guardian ad litem’s role.
  • State v. Pruett, 900 S.W.2d 335, 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 874 (Tex.1995). Successfully interpretation of a novel issue of Texas law interpreting a statute indemnifying health care professionals whose practice includes providing indigent care.
  • Parker v. Cumming, 216 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, pet. denied), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1671 (2008). Successfully obtained a favorable construction of a limitations tolling provision.
  • North Am. Van Lines, Inc. v. Emmons, 50 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. App.—Beaumont, 2001, pet. denied). Successfully upheld favorable jury verdict.
  • Mares v. Ford Motor Co., 53 S.W.3d 416 ( Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.). Successfully upheld favorable jury verdict following an appeal from the second trial of the same case.
  • Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n of Am., 114 F.3d 557, 79 A.F.T.R.2d 97-3012, 97-2 USTC P 50,492, (5th Cir. 1997)
  • Muth v. Ford Motor Co., 461 F.3d 557 (5th Cir. 2006). Unsuccessful attempt to overturn an adverse jury verdict.
  • Wright v. Ford Motor Co., 508 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2007). Successful appeal construing recent 2003 Texas Tort Reform statutes creating a presumption of no liability based upon compliance with governmental standards.
  • In re Ford Motor Co., 591 F.3d 406 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3467 (2010)
  • Ford Motor Co. v. Villanueva, 302 S.W.3d 476 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2009, no pet.) (successfully overturned conditions imposed by trial court in dismissing a case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens)
  • Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 279 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2009) (created new law in situations setting aside a settlement premised upon notes from the jury foreperson which appear to have been the result of a rogue juror or outside influence)