Schirrmeister Diaz-Arrastia Brem LLP is active in Federal and State courts of appeal throughout the United States. We have had recent successes in state courts of appeal in Texas and Arkansas, and in the Federal courts of appeal for the Fifth and Federal Circuits. We have experience in a broad range of appellate work, including appeals, mandamus proceedings, interlocutory appeals and restricted appeals. Our lawyers have been involved in several cases that have established new law.

Representative cases we have handled in the courts of appeal include:

• Obtaining mandamus relief from the Texas Supreme Court in a case where more than 400 former plant workers claim a variety of illnesses allegedly resulting from exposure to a "toxic soup" of chemicals at their place of employment. The trial court set for trial the claims of 20 bellwether plaintiffs selected by plaintiffs' counsel. We argued that the claims of the 20 bellwether plaintiffs were too dissimilar to allow grouping into a single trial, and that the grouping did not satisfy the requirements established by the Texas Supreme Court, would confuse the jury and prejudice the defense. After an intermediate appellate court refused to reverse the trial court's decision, we sought mandamus relief from the Texas Supreme Court. In granting all the relief sought by our client, the supreme court said: "Establishing a defendant's liability based on one plaintiff's exposure to a certain chemical combination will not aid in establishing a different defendant's liability for another plaintiff's exposure to an entirely different mixture of chemicals. . . . Rather, it would only serve to prejudice and confuse a jury." The firm was also involved represented in the two earlier mandamus proceedings in this ten year old case.


• Obtaining affirmance by the Arkansas Court of Appeals of an unanimous jury verdict in favor of our client in the first trial of a trace benzene case defended by the paint industry. The Appellants contended that it was error for the trial court to have excluded the testimony of the treating physician on specific causation and further that it was error for the trial court to have prevented the Plaintiffs from cross-examining a defense expert on the "One molecule theory." Appellants also argued that it was error for the trial court to allow a defense expert to testify that the absence of a deletion of the 5,7 chromosome made it less likely that exposure to benzene caused the decedent's acute myelogenous leukemia, and that it was error for the trial court to refuse to allow a trial amendment after the close of evidence to include a negligence theory. We were also trial counsel in the underlying case, which was the subject of a front page article in the December 2002 issue of the National Law Journal.
• Winning an appeal to the San Antonio Court of Appeals by obtaining a reversal of the trial court's denial of our motion to dismiss our client for lack of personal jurisdiction in a suit over a crash along the United States-Mexico border involving multiple deaths and personal injuries. The Court of Appeals concluded that our client, a foreign airline, did not have minimal contacts that allowed it to be subject to Texas jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court abused its discretion and reversed and rendered, dismissing our client from Texas litigation.
• Successfully defending on appeal the trial court's granting of our motion to dismiss a foreign transportation company for lack of personal jurisdiction in Texas, where the defendant entered contracts and sent barges to Texas.
• Advising a national home builder in obtaining the reversal of an adverse judgment in a deceptive trade practices and fraud suit brought by a group of home purchasers arising from the builder's marketing program. A Federal trial court judgment was reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the plaintiffs' application for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was successfully opposed.
• Obtaining a reversal of a summary judgment against a Houston-based real estate developer in a real estate fraud suit the developer had filed against a Fortune 500 company that had sold it contaminated industrial property. An opinion by the Austin Court of Appeals clarified the application of Texas statutes that provide for the relation back of amended pleadings in order to defeat a plea of limitations, as well as the statutes of limitation that apply to various fraud and misrepresentation causes of action under Texas law.
• Obtaining a reversal of an adverse judgment against a national bank in a suit arising from a real property foreclosure. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas at Houston issued an opinion clarifying the legal standards for a valid real property foreclosure in Texas.
• Representing a regional construction company in litigation and appeals in Federal court arising from a contract to substantially remodel the Federal Building in Galveston, Texas. The U. S. General Services Administration (GSA) terminated the client's contract for alleged defaults. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the GSA's default determination and converted the termination of the contract to a termination for convenience.
• Obtaining affirmance of a judgment for conversion and civil theft liability in a case arising from the termination of the local head of business for an international forwarding company. This case established the principle that attorney's fees may be recovered under the Texas civil theft liability statute even if the jury awards no damages for theft.
• Obtaining affirmance of the district court's denial of a special appearance of an Australian oil and gas corporation conducting business in Texas. With its affirmance, the Court of Appeals ordered that appellant pay all costs incurred in the appeal.