Skip to main content
E. Lee Parsley

E. Parsley’s Legal Cases

6 total

  • Pantera Energy Co. v. Railroad Commission of Texas

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Feb 05, 2004
    Outcome:
    Court of Appeals affirmed trial court
    Description:
    In this case, an oil producer in Texas’ panhandle field sought judicial review of a Railroad Commission order refusing to allow the producer to “un-pool” leases—an action that would have allowed the producer to drill additional wells in the field. Mr. Parsley represented a company that produces oil from adjacent land that would have been drained by the new wells. The Austin Court of Appeals affirmed the Railroad Commission’s order.
  • Dodd Animal Hospital, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Aug 06, 2003
    Outcome:
    Court of Appeals affirmed trial court
    Description:
    Mr. Parsley represented an insurance company sued for “bad faith” because it refused to pay a claim arising before the effective date of the insurance policy. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Mr. Parsley’s client and the court of appeals affirmed.
  • City of Dallas v. Albert

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Outcome:
    Pending in Texas Supreme Court
    Description:
    Mr. Parsley represents a group of Dallas fire fighters and police officers who have sued the City of Dallas for back pay resulting from the City's refusal to comply with an ordinance governing these first responders' salaries. After nine years of litigation, the City asserted that it was immune from the first responders' suit. The City asserts that it may owe the first responders as much as $1 billion if the first responders prevail in this case. The Texas Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case on December 17, 2009. Mr. Parsley will make the argument on the first responders' behalf in the Supreme Court of Texas.
  • In re Cherry

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Outcome:
    Court of Appeals reversed trial court
    Description:
    Cherry was prosecuted after absconding with her child to flee an abusive ex-husband. She pled guilty to the offense of interference with child custody in a plea bargain agreement with the State. The punishment agreed to and recommended to the court was that Cherry would receive three years' deferred adjudication to begin on October 18, 2004. After the three-year period expired on October 18, 2007, the trial court signed a new order declaring that there was a mistake in the first order and that Cherry's term of probation actually began on October 18, 2005, effectively extending her probation by one year. Cherry, represented by Mr. Parsley, appealed. The court of appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the trial court could not unilaterally extend the term of Cherry's probation.
  • Save Our Springs Alliance v. City of Dripping Springs

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Jul 03, 2009
    Outcome:
    Court of Appeals affirmed trial court
    Description:
    The City of Dripping Springs entered into agreements with two landowners in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction, Cypress-Hays, L.P. (represented by Lee Parsley) and Mak Foster Ranch, L.P. The agreements contemplated the landowners' development of portions of their property for residential, commercial, and recreational use. The agreements were approved by the city council in public meetings. Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. filed suit alleging that the agreements would result in added pollution to the environmentally sensitive Edwards Aquifer. In its petition, SOS sought a declaration that the agreements violated the Texas Constitution, and alleged that the public notices regarding the city council's approval of the agreements did not sufficiently communicate the subject matter of the meetings as required by the Texas Open Meetings Act. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision that SOS lacked standing to sue the City and developers.
  • Weaver v. Tobin

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Outcome:
    Court of Appeals reversed trial court
    Description:
    The plaintiffs sued the defendant, represented on appeal by Mr. Parsley, for alleged fraud related to a residential construction project. The court of appeals, based on Parsley's brief for the defendant, held that the trial court erred in rendering a fraud judgment for the plaintiffs because the plaintiffs did not present any evidence that the defendant made a misrepresentation to them.