Michael W. Eady

Texas Board of Legal Specialization

Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law

Michael Eady has the unique experience of representing clients during the most challenging litigation environments. Since 1995, he has been teamed with national and local counsel to assist in the trial and appeal, if necessary, of cases in Texas, Mississippi, Illinois, Nevada, Georgia, and Louisiana. Since 2005, he and other members of his team have logged over 600 days in trial in over 65 cases.

Michael is a civil appellate attorney with an extensive background representing clients at trial for the purpose of anticipated appeals. His practice consists of appearing before the Texas Supreme Court and intermediate Appellate Courts of Texas.

Representative Experience

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.

Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 250 (Tex. 2007)

Successfully obtained an affirmance of lower court’s judgment interpreting an agreement between counsels.

Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 234 S.W.3d 642, 50 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 965 (Tex.2007)

Successfully protected confidentiality of Volvo Car documents, overturning contrary rulings by the trial and intermediate appellate court.

In re Ford Motor Co., 211 S.W.3d 295, 50 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 291 (Tex. 2006)

Successfully overturned both trial court and intermediate appellate court’s decision allowing a $100,000 ad litem fee.

Land Rover U.K., Ltd. v. Hinojosa, 210 S.W.3d 604, 50 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 236 (Tex. 2006)

Successfully overturned both the trial court and intermediate appellate court’s decision denying a mandatory legislative trial continuance.

In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 808 (Tex. 2005)

Appellant Counsel Cases

Cause No. C-2625-02-1; Aaron Cardenas, et al. v. Angel’s Auto Mart, et al.; In the 398th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Cause No. DC; 04-254; Danny Roy Lopez, et al. v. Pool Company of Texas, Ltd, et al.; In the 229th Judicial District Court of Starr County, Texas

Cause No. 03-H-0089-C; Kenneth Wayne Mead, Jr., et al vs. Ford Motor Company, et al; In the 23rd Judicial District Court of Matagorda County, Texas

Successfully interpretation of a novel issue of Texas law interpreting a statute indemnifying health care professionals whose practice includes providing indigent care.

State v. Pruett, 900 S.W.2d 335, 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 874 (Tex.1995)

Successfully obtained a favorable construction of a limitations tolling provision.

Parker v. Cumming, 216 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, pet. denied), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1671 (2008)

Successfully upheld favorable jury verdict.

North Am. Van Lines, Inc. v. Emmons, 50 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. App.—Beaumont, 2001, pet. denied)

Successfully upheld favorable jury verdict following an appeal from the second trial of the same case.

Mares v. Ford Motor Co., 53 S.W.3d 416 ( Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.)

Unsuccessful attempt to overturn an adverse jury verdict.

Muth v. Ford Motor Co., 461 F.3d 557 (5th Cir. 2006)