Results

OUR TRACK RECORD: EXPERIENCE & EXPERTISE

The attorneys at Daniel Sheehan and Associates take pride in our ability to resolve conflicts inside the court room and out. Success at trial relies on more than courtroom charm and the power of persuasion. Our lawyers begin planning for trial at the very start of a case. We constantly calibrate our strategy and maintain focus on the goals sought by our clients. Please take a moment to review our substantial level of experience in court rooms, arbitrations and mediations across Texas:

• Tragedy visited one of our clients when her husband suddenly died. As a result of his
   death, she inherited his partnership share of an emergency medical care company,
   valued at approximately $6 million. She sought to simply liquidate her interest in the
   business by selling it back to the other partners. However the lawyer she hired convinced
   her instead to sue her partners, while persuading the widow to assign to the lawyer a
   substantial percentage of any legal settlement. The attorney stood to receive
   approximately $1.6 million from the unconscionable contingent fee contract. At trial, we
   argued that the fees were excessive and should not be paid and that payments already
   made should be refunded. The jury agreed and also voided the contract between our
   client and the lawyer.

•  A federal court jury in Dallas sided with our client, a multi-million dollar health care
   company when it sought to enforce its agreements with outside consultants and
   suppliers. At issue were the actions of a consultant who had agreed not to receive
   payment from suppliers or manufacturers in connection with products he developed for
   our client. During trial, jurors learned that the consultant orchestrated a scheme in which
   he created companies to sell the raw materials needed to make products for our client.
   He then sold these materials at inflated prices to our client's manufacturer.

• We sued a well-known large law firm, on behalf of an equipment manufacturing company
   that had been hit with an $18.8 million dollar verdict for patent infringement. At trial, we
   demonstrated that the law firm's lack of basic knowledge about patent law principles led
   to the adverse result against our client.

• We assisted a client in a battle over her share of the family business. Her interest had
   been pried away through the maneuvering of a manipulative ex-husband. The case
   required the lawyers at Daniel Sheehan & Associates to fight a commercial litigation
   battle while at the same time attempting to roll back a flawed divorce decree. Ultimately,
   we convinced a judge to set aside a previous court judgment that had awarded to
   someone else our clients significant interest in a valuable ongoing enterprise.

• We are experienced in arbitration and mediation. In a recent case, we represented
   an investor who had been bilked by a hedge fund manager who made unauthorized
   transactions, costing our client several million dollars. We recouped the money by
   prevailing in a first arbitration against the hedge fund manager. We then proceeded to a
   second arbitration where we gained additional reimbursement from a national brokerage
   firm that should have notified our client, and received his consent, before authorizing the
   rogue transactions.

FEDERAL CASES

U.S. Supreme Court

City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 190 S. Ct. 1591, 104 L.Ed.2d 18, 57 USLW 4406 (S.Ct. 1989).

Federal Courts of Appeal

Singh v. Duane Morris LLP, 538 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 2008)

AdvoCare Intern. LP v. Horizon Laboratories, Inc., 524 F.3d 679 (5th Cir. 2008)

Hubbard v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n, 42 F.3d 942, (5th Cir. 1995)

Transtechnology Corporation v. W. Pat Crow Forgings, Inc., 981 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir. 1992)

Lund Industries, Inc. v. GO Industries, 938 F.2d 1273, 19 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1991)

Fine v. American Solar King Corp., 919 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1990)

Sumitomo Bank of California v. Product Promotions, Inc., 717 F.2d 215, 14 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 591 (5th Cir. 1983)

District Court Opinions

Punyee v. Bredimus, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 488692 (N.D. Tex. 2006)

Advocare Intern. L.P. v. Horizon Laboratories, Inc., Slip Copy, 2006 WL 278993 (N.D. Tex., 2006)

Advocare Intern, L.P., v. Horizon Laboratories, Inc., Slip Copy, 2006 WL 176573 (N.D. Tex. 2006)

Boonma v. Bredimus, Not Reported in F. Supp.2d, 2005 WL 1831967 (N.D. Tex. 2005)

In re Smith, 160 B.R. 549 (N.D. Tex. 1993)

In re Smith, 133 B.R. 800, 60 USLW 2407, Bankr. L. Rep. P 74, 380 (N.D. Tex. 1991)

In re Smith, 113 B.R. 297 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1990)

Federal Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp. v. Atkinson-Smith University Park Joint Venture, 729 F.Supp. 1130 (N.D. Tex. 1989)

TEXAS STATE CASES

Texas Supreme Court

Hoover Slovacek LLP v. Walton, 206 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. 2006)

Stanglin v. Keda Development Corp., 713 S.W.2d 94 (Tex. 1986)

Hathaway v. General Mills, Inc., 711 S.W.2d 277, 69 A.L.R. 4th 1139 (Tex. 1986)

Texas Courts of Appeal

Walton v. Hoover, Bax & Slovacek, LLP, 149 S.W.3d 834 (Tex.App.-El Paso, 2004)

Domizio v. Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co., 54 S.W.3d 867 (Tex.App.-Austin, 2001)

In re Hoover, Bax & Slovacek, L.L.P., 6 S.W.3d 646 (Tex.App.-El Paso, 1999)

Lee v. Lee, 47 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.], 2001)

Murphy v. Murphy, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2004 WL 254223 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, 2004)

Straza v. Friedman, Driegert & Hsuech, L.L.C., 124 S.W.3d 404 (Tex.App.-Dallas, 2003)

Liptak v. Thornhill, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2002 WL 31730926 (Tex.App.-Dallas, 2002)

Rapp Collins Worldwide, Inc. v. Mohr, 982 S.W.2d 478 (Tex.App.-Dallas, 1998)

Amara v. Lain, 725 S.W.2d 734 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, 1986)

Keda Development Corp. v. Stanglin, 721 S.W.2d 897 (Tex.App.-Dallas, 1986)

Moore v. White Motor Credit Corp., 708 S.W.2d 465 (Tex.App.-Dallas, 1985)

General Mills, Inc. v. Hathaway, 694 S.W.2d 96 (Tex.App.-Dallas, 1985)

Brokers Leasing Corp. v. Standard Pipeline Coating Co., 602 S.W.2d 278 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas, 1980)

Bair v. Voelker Realty Co., Inc., 598 S.W.2d 867 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas, 1979)

Henry S. Miller Co. v. Treo Enterprises, 573 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana, 1978)

Bridewell v. Prichett, 562 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth, 1978)

Carroll v. Knickerbocker, 544 S.W.2d 841 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana, 1976)

Monesson v. Champion Intern. Corp., Del-Mar Division, 546 S.W.2d 631 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler, 1976)

Other Jurisdictions

Franklin & Franklin v. 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising, 85 Cal. App. 4th 1168, 102 Cal. Rptr.2d 770 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2000)

In re Omnitrition Intern., Inc. Securities Litigation, Not Reported in F. Supp., 1995 WL 626529 (N.D. Cal. 1995)