Mike Hatchell was named one of the "Top 100 Texas Super Lawyers" in a recent survey conducted by Texas Monthly. The Super Lawyers were selected from responses to 65,000 ballots and further review and ranking by a Blue-Ribbon Panel. In 2002, Mike Hatchell was recognized as one of the top five appellate lawyers in Texas in the Texas Lawyer 2002 "Top Notch" Lawyer Survey.

Texas Monthly Survey names Molly Hatchell

Molly Hatchell was named one of 42 "Super Lawyers" in Appellate Practice for the Dallas/Fort Worth Region. Super Lawyers were limited to no more than 5% of practicing lawyers in the State.

Hatchell PC secures a reversal of a multi-million dollar judgment against a hospital company with a decision that applies the "emergency" exception to the informed consent doctrine in the birth of a premature infant. Hatchell PC led an appellate team consisting of several law firms to successfully reverse a $65 million judgment against certain Columbia HCA entities for successful lifesaving efforts administered to a premature infant.

Hatchell PC successfully argues for heightened restrictions on class action litigation. In Schein v. Stromboe the Texas Supreme Court sustained arguments on behalf of Hatchell PC's clients to strengthen requirements for class actions for classes based on predominance of common questions where "reliance" was an important element of the cause of action.

The firm secures a rare defamation award for a public official: In Bentley v. Bunton, the Texas Supreme Court made a rare holding in a defamation case brought by a public figure (a sitting judge). The Court found defamation per se by holding that falsely calling the judge "corrupt" could be defamatory in the context in which it was uttered.

Mike and Molly Hatchell assist the Edwards Aquifer in obtaining a ruling that protects the agency's authority to conserve water resources: In a holding important to conservation of water rights, the Supreme Court ruled that the Edwards Aquifer Authority was immune from another Act - the Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act - that would have severely hampered the Authority’s ability to pass rules to enable its allocation of water pumping rights within the Aquifer. Mike Hatchell orally argued the case.

Mike Hatchell leads an appellate team in successfully fending off an attack on the title to a portion of the storied King Ranch: Mike Hatchell of Hatchell PC led an appellate team that secured reversal of an adverse judgment and obtained rendition of judgment that plaintiffs take nothing in a suit seeking title to a portion of the historic King Ranch based on a supposed fraud in 1882. The decision took a strong policy stand against use of "historical tidbits", folklore, and other tenuous evidence to set aside decades or centuries old judgment and land titles through a bill of review procedure.

R.R. Street & Co. Inc. v. Pilgrim Enterprises Inc., et al. (02-0758)
(Oral argument set January 14, 2004.) The Supreme Court staff summarized the issue as follows:
A principal issue in this recovery claim involving contamination under the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act is whether Street, a dry-cleaners supplier, was a “person responsible for solid waste” on the basis of “arranger liability.”

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. David Garza (No. 01-1142)
(Oral argument October 15, 2003.) The Supreme Court staff summarized the issues as follows:
"The principal issues in this retaliatory-termination and discrimination case are (1) whether the employee adequately pleaded a discrimination case, based on disqualification; (2) whether the trial court's submission mixed valid and invalid legal theories; (3) whether sufficient evidence established the employee's worker's compensation claim was the "but for" reason for his discharge; and (4) whether clear and convincing evidence of malice by a managerial agent supported the punitive-damage award."

F.F.P. Operating Partners L.P. v. Xavier Dueñez and Irene Dueñez, et al. (No. 02-0381)(Oral argument March 5, 2003). The issues, as summarized by the Supreme Court, are as follows:

(1) whether the proportionate-responsibility statute applies to a third-party dram shop case without an allegation that the plaintiff was negligent;

(2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by severing the convenience store's contribution claim against the drunken driver; and

(3) whether the trial court should have submitted this refused jury instruction: "[I]f an act or omission of any person not a party to the suit was the 'sole proximate cause' of an occurrence, then no act or omission of any other person could have been a proximate cause."

Molly Hatchell and Prof. William V. Dorsaneo published the "Class Actions" chapter of The Texas Litigation Guide. The chapter presents in-depth analysis of case law regarding the requirements for bringing class actions under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Chapter 13, "Class Actions", Texas Litigation Guide, William V. Dorsaneo III and Molly Hatchell.