|
|
Address
7 West Way Court, Suite C
Lake Jackson, Texas 77566 (Brazoria Co.)
Average Client Review Rating
Rating not available
Average Peer Review Rating
5.0
out of 5
(Main Office) Mr. Moore has been practicing law for over twenty years in Brazoria County. He represents clients in Harris, Galveston, Matagorda and Wharton counties as well. A substantial portion of his practice is devoted to defending clients in personal injury, products liability, toxic tort and commercial litigation. He also acts as local counsel for numerous law firms and clients outside of the Brazoria County area. His clients include, but are not limited to, all of the major chemical companies and contractor companies in the area. Statement of PracticeCivil Practice, Premises Liability, Personal Injury, Products Liability Defense, Employment Law, Business Litigation. Firm Size: 1
Randy E. Moore (Member) born Baytown, Texas, July 23, 1954; admitted to bar, 1983, Texas; 1985, U.S. District Court, Southern and Northern Districts of Texas; U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Education: Texas A. & M. University (B.A., 1979); South Texas College of Law (J.D., 1983). Pi Sigma Alpha. Member: Brazoria County Bar Association; State Bar of Texas; Texas Association of Defense Counsel; DRI; Fellow, Texas Bar Foundation. Reported Cases: In re Dole Food Co., NO. 14-06-00870-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas Fourteenth District, Houston, 2007 Tex. App. April 10, 2007; Poore v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., NO. 14-06-00355-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston, 2006 Tex. App.; King v. BASF Corp., NO. 14-06-00241-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston, 2006 Tex. App. May 11, 2006, Memorandum Opinion Filed, Petition for review denied by King v. BASF Copr., 2006 Tex. (Tex., Nov. 3, 2006) Motion for rehearing on petition for review denied by King v. BASF Corp., 2007 Tex. (Tex., Jan. 5, 2007); Hamby v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., NO. 01-03-00361-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston, 137 S.W.3d 834; 2004 Tex. App. May 13, 2004, Opinion Isssued, Petition for review denied by Hamby v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2004 Tex. (Tex., Aug. 13, 2004); CU Lloyd's v. Hatfield, NO. 14-02-01251-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston, 126 S.W.3d 679; 2004 Tex. App. January 29, 2004, Judgement Rendered, January 29, 2004, Opinion Filed, Petition for review denied by Hatfield v. CU Lloyd's of Tex., 2004 Tex. (Tex., Sept. 24, 2004); Gonzales v. O/S Vessel Brazos Pilot, 56 F.Supp.2d 770 (S.D. Tex., Jul 15, 1999) (NO. CIV. A. G-99-085); Leavitt v. BASF Corp., 946 F.Supp. 488 (S.D.Tex., Nov 25, 1996) (NO. CIV.A.G-95-631); Dow Chemical Co. v. Bright, 89 S.W.3d 602, 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 35 (Tex., Oct 17, 2002) (NO.99-0929); American Type Culture Collection, Inc. v. Coleman, 83 S.W.3d 801, 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1008 (Tex., Jul 03, 2002) (NO.00-0959); American Type Culture Collection, Inc. v. Coleman, 26 S.W.3d 37, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,888 (Tex.App.-Hous. (1 Dist.), May 18, 2000) (NO. 01-99-00045-CV); Bright v. Dow Chemical Co., 1 S.W.3d 787 (Tex.App.-Hous. (1 Dist), Aug 17, 1999) (NO.01-98-00239-CV); Good v. Dow Chemical Co., 945 S.W.2d 877 (Tex.App.-Hous. (1 Dist.), May 08, 1997) (NO. 01-96-00310-CV); Staublein v. Dow Chemical Co.,885 S.W.2d 502 (Tex.App.-El Paso, Jul 21, 1994) (NO. 08-93-00291-CV); Kotis v. Nowlin Jewelry, Inc., 844 S.W.2d 920, 19 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1067 (Tex.App.-Hous. (14 Dist.), Dec 31, 1992) (NO. C14-91-00840-CV). Practice Areas: Civil Practice; Premises Liability; Personal Injury; Products Liability Defense; Employment Law; Business Litigation.Email: Randy E. Moore
Ratings Methodology
The following firm members have been rated by their peersDisclaimer: No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. The testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. Any result that the endorsed lawyer or law firm may achieve on behalf of one client in one matter does not necessarily indicate that similar results can be obtained for other clients. Past success cannot be an assurance of future success because each case must be decided on its own merits. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Martindale-Hubbell® does not undertake to develop a Client Review Rating or Peer Review Rating for all firms and/or lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed as unfavorable. Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for and will not be liable for the content and accuracy of the individual Reviews and the aggregated Reviews.
|