How to find a Personal Injury Law Firm in San Antonio

Many lawyers in San Antonio handle personal injury; however, the insurance companies have law firms handling their claims and so should you. Although many attorneys are capable of getting a good settlement, your chances of getting a GREAT settlement increases when you have a reputable Law Firm handling your personal injury case. Why, because of resources.

Whether you have an auto accident in San Antonio, or you have been injured by some one's negligence including doctors, our Law Firm has the resources to handle any type of cases for our clients. We see this time and time again: a person comes to us because their prior attorney could not handle the expenses of the case. Or the prior attorney did not know how to handle the case. We have top lawyers in San Antonio that know the law and know how to help you!

Before you hire any Law Firm in San Antonio, please review what people and other clients are saying about the Firm. If you review The Baez Law Firm, you will find nothing but great things about our attorneys and our law firm. In fact, we are Super Lawyers in Texas. We take pride in been a Texas Law Firm but we are very proud that our principal office is in San Antonio.

We love that we can stand by our motto: “Minimizing Legal Worries!”℠ because we have hired top lawyers so that our clients don't have to worry about their cases. This is our Guarantee! Give us a call if you are ever in need of a Law Firm that will help you with your legal matters. Cal us (210) 979-9777 or visit our new Law Firm Suite @ 1100 NW Loop 410, Suite 500, San Antonio, Texas 78213.

How to find Top Accident Lawyers in San Antonio

Auto Accidents happen often in San Antonio on a daily basis. We know this because there is plenty of statistical data backing up this claim. When you are involved in an auto accident, how do you find top lawyers to help you get the settlement that you deserve? This blog is intended to answer that question.

Before we answer that question, we have to look at some things that may contribute to the accidetnts. Why are so many people in San Antonio involved in auto accidents to begin with? Perhaps we are in a hury. Perhaps we are a growing city. Or perhaps simply we are just unlucky. In any event, if you are a victim of an automobile accident, you have the right to get a lawyer. Why, because the insurance company, whom you are filing a claim against, has its own lawyers.

This is like doing brain surgery. You would not do it yourself. Would you? Then why in the world would you do your own auto accident claim? We do not recommend that. This is when the attempt to answering the question comes in. You see TV commercials, and see bus advertisements that tells you, this lawyer is the best, no this one is.

Rather than saying that, we are going to allow clients and others to tell you about our lawyers. But first, let me say that our law firm offers a FREE Auto Accident Application, in the event that you are ever into an accident. Not many law firms can say that.

We will start by what they are saying on AVVO: This is an independent site that rates lawyers, doctors and others bases on customers reviews, peer reviews and the public in general. Our Lawyers have been deemend Top Accident Lawyers by them.

Then we will go with Super Lawyers: This is an independent site that for decades, has a tough selection process by peers and professionals that select only a few lawyes in any particular area per year. Our Lawyers were selected in the area of Personal Injury, which includes auto accidents.

We have several blogs that talk about personal injury only. In an effort to help the San Antonio community if they are ever involved in an auto accident.

We could go on and on but we are going to let you, the reader, do some due dilligence on your own. If you, or someone you know are ever involved in an accident, please contact our super layers at The Baez Law Firm.

Trucking Accidents in San Antonio

We know that huge 18-wheeler semi-trucks on our San Antonio roads and highways can be bothersome and quite intimidating to most automobile drivers.  The nature of the truck-driving industry itself perpetuates this commonly felt anxiety that the general public has with semi-trucks.  We all are aware that these semi-trucks serve a useful purpose; however, we are also aware that to make sufficient income, drivers of these trucks are generally under rigid schedules and tight deadlines for their deliveries.  That is why a truck driver may be inclined to drive too fast or to drive when overtired.  The truck driver may even be taking illegal drugs to help him/her stay awake so that deadlines can be met.  We also know that when a collision occurs between one of these semi-trucks and an automobile, the results can be catastrophic with substantial personal injury and increased fatalities as well as significant damage to the automobile and its occupants.  Where do you begin when you are involved in a truck accident?  Proving that the truck driver was “negligent,” is one of the first steps in a trucking accident case.

All Texas truck drivers have a Duty to follow the rules of the road and state-mandated trucking laws and a Duty to use “ordinary care” while driving a truck.   Ordinary care is that which a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances.  A Breach of that duty, negligence, can occur when a driver failed to follow the rules of the road, failed to follow the trucking laws, or did not use ordinary care.  The following are just some of the types of negligent behavior which can cause truck accidents:  failure to keep a proper lookout, inattentive driver, speeding, driving while on the phone or texting, driving too slowly, following too closely, failing to use a turn signal, failing to yield the right-of-way, failing to stop at a stop sign, driving through a red light, driving impaired, such as driving fatigued or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, driving on the wrong side of the road, failing to control the truck, and improper truck maintenance.  This list is definitely not exhaustive as there are many other ways that a truck driver can be found to not be using ordinary care. 

The next step, the Causation element, simply means that the negligent actions of the truck driver were the “proximate cause” of the other parties’ injuries.  You must prove that the accident occurred because, in a natural and continuous sequence, the negligent actions of the truck driver produced the accident and without the negligent actions of the truck driver the crash would not have occurred.  For example, the truck driver was driving in an impaired state such as sleep-deprived and fell asleep at the wheel.  A person of ordinary care would have foreseen that a truck driver who is driving fatigued had a great potential to fall asleep while driving and thus cause an accident.  In truck accident cases, however, proximate cause is rarely an issue.

Finally, you must prove the Damages.  The other vehicle’s driver and/or passengers may have suffered Personal Injury (PI) damages or there may be damages to the other vehicle or both because of the truck driver’s negligence.  Whichever the case, the parties involved need to seek medical attention as soon as possible and keep thorough records and receipts of all medical expenses. 

If you are involved in a collision with a semi-truck, you should immediately seek The Báez Law Firm, P.C. Our San Antonio Lawyers are here to help you with your trucking accident, auto accident and personal injury in general. Give us a call (210) 979-9777 so that one of our professionals can get you in with an attorney immediately. Our consultation is free.

Had a Car Accident in San Antonio? Need a Lawyer? We can help!

We are The Baez Law Firm from San Antonio Texas and we have been helping people in Bexar County that have been victims of an auto accidents. We do this because we know that victims of auto accidents will be treated unfairly by insurance adjusters if they are not represented.

The major insurance companies in the Unites States all have attorneys that handle the case for them. You should have your own lawyers working for you. This is why we have been so successful since we care about your legal needs!

We have created auto accident applications for both the iphone and Android markets. This auto accident applications are free for you to use, whether you get us as your attorneys. This applications are important because it will collect necessary information in the event that you are involved in an accident.

Do not confuse insurance companies adjuster that call you early in the process after your accident, with your friends. They are not. They are only working for the insurance companies to increase their bottom line and decrease your potential recovery.

Let us work for you on your auto accident case. If not, please accept our free auto accident application for you. Again, if you have been in an auto accident, give us a call (210) 979-9777.

Auto Accident Lawyers

Our San Antonio Lawyers have been helping people in Bexar County with their auto accidents successfully. We do this because our paralegals, case managers and lawyers, are ranked by others as Top Legal Representation. But we just don't say this, others do.

We have been able to get maximum settlements for our clients as a result of some one's negligence. Our legal team will make an on spot determination of liability, and send you to see doctors immediately. We have top paralegal helping our lawyers with the case unlike insurance companies who do not!

We are proud to say that, since we have not lost a single personal injury case, we offer contingency cases. If we don't win, we don't get pay! It's that simple.

We have been selected as Super Lawyers by our peers. Insurance companies have lawyers in their ranks, you should have Top Lawyers on yours when it comes to Auto Accidents.

Download our free accident applications for both iPhones and Android.

The 4th Amendment and Excessive Force: A case that helps our clients!

The threshold to overcome by Plaintiffs in civil actions against Police Officers for "excessive force" is that, the force utilized on the date in question has to be excessive and not reasonable under the circumstances.

In all cases, the "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split–second judgments–in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly revolving–about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers’ actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.

This case bellow has been used by our law firm to time and time again to help our client's cases in federal court against police officers who used "excessive force." This is a 5th Circuit case.

Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2004)

 A police officer sought to detain a sixteen (16) year old woman because she was parked on the wrong side of the road and because, when he shined a spotlight on her car, several people fled from the vicinity. The woman did not respond to the officer’s repeated commands that she stop and instead drove away. The officer shot her car to prevent her escape. The officer’s shot entered the car’s bumper just above the tailpipe and ultimately lodged in the back of the muffler. The minor suffered no immediate physical injury, though her car was damaged.

When the woman stopped, the officer arrested her for evading detention. It was determined that the sixteen years old was in violation of a weeknight curfew for minors. Later investigation revealed alcohol in the area surrounding where the car was parked, though no evidence suggested she had been drinking. The woman sued the officer and the city pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming excessive use of force.

On appeal, the court held that the district court properly denied summary judgment on the excessive force claim. The officer used physical force by shooting at her car, and the termination of her freedom of movement was accomplished by the shot to her car. The suspect’s perception of her detention is not considered when it is accomplished by means of physical force. It was clearly established that shooting toward a person is a use of physical force. It was also clearly established that a use of physical force that succeeds in stopping a fleeing suspect constitutes a seizure. It was clearly established that stopping a moving car by intentionally shooting it constitutes a seizure.

It was clearly established at the time that psychological injuries can be sufficient to state a 4th Amendment excessive force claim. The officer was on notice that using force carrying with it a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm is "deadly force." The officer was also on notice that deadly force would only be justified by a reasonable belief that he or the public was in imminent danger. The officer reasonably should have known that his action caused a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm. As such, the officer is not protected by qualified immunity as to the minor’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.

Police Officers should not be deterred from using force, if necessary, while effectuating an arrest, but only when–the force utilized–is "objectively reasonable" under the circumstances and not "excessive." It is the burden of the Plaintiff to prove and show that the Police Officer was not entitled to Qualified Immunity on the particular date.

If you, or someone you know has been injured by a police officer, and you believe that the force was excessive give us a call (210) 979-9777. The Baez Law Firm has been helping people with their police brutality cases and has been successful in bringing great results.

Judgment for $1.3 million

The Baez Law Firm from San Antonio Texas, obtained a trial judgment Friday, June 29, 2012 against Skyco Inc. an equipment company from Florida. The judgment was obtained based on Skyco's misrepresentations fraud and deceptive practices here in Texas.

The judgment was awarded to Pannel Construction Co. a Texas company that purchased equipment from Skyco. Pannel Construction is one of many clients of the firm, that we have help recover damages for their injuries here in Texas.

When any company does business over the internet in Texas, they can be held liable to a Texas jury for any damages  that they may cause to either an individual or a company in Texas. This is called availing themselves to a Texas forum. If you thing that a company is doing you or your business wrong, give us a call.

We represent people, businesses and others in Texas on multiple issues including litigation and trial, appeals, and many more. If you are in need of business representation, or have litigation issues, give us a call. If your company has been damaged, give us a call.

We have been selected as Super Lawyers by our peers because of our success and commitment to our clients and their cases.

Out of State companies doing businesses in Texas, either over the internet or mail, and make misrepresentation to a Texas company or individual, and a contract is entered into, those out of State companies will be held liable in Texas for their wrongs.

Congratulations to Pannel Construction Co. for the judgment obtained yesterday against Skyco. It has been a long process but it had its rewards. We have been honored to have represented you during this entire litigation. This is why we say, "we care about your legal needs!"

Is your auto accident covered by PIP Insurance?

Do you know whether your claims is covered by PIP or not? Have you been injured in a motor vehicle accident? Is your claim covered? There are numerous court factors considered in making the determination. Here is some of the research on that topic.

The statute's definition of "personal injury protection" is detailed, but it does not specify whether merely "an accident" will trigger coverage or whether a "motor vehicle accident" is required. The statute uses the term "the accident" six times, and the phrase "the date of accident" once, without expressing whether "the accident" contemplates, or does not contemplate, an automobile or motor vehicle accident.

Personal injury protection consists of provisions of a motor vehicle liability policy which provide for payment to the named insured in the motor vehicle liability policy and members of the insured's household, any authorized operator or passenger of the named insured's motor vehicle including a guest occupant, up to an amount of $2,500 for each such person for payment of all reasonable expenses arising from the accident and incurred within three years from the date thereof for necessary medical, surgical, Xray and dental services, including prosthetic devices, and necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing and funeral services, and in the case of an income producer, payment of benefits for loss of income as the result of the accident; and where the person injured in the accident was not an income or wage producer at the time of the accident, payments of benefits must be made in reimbursement of necessary and reasonable expenses incurred for essential services ordinarily performed by the injured person for care and maintenance of the family or family household.

The insurer providing loss of income benefits may require, as a condition of receiving such benefits, that the insured person furnish the insurer reasonable medical proof of his injury causing loss of income. The personal injury protection in this paragraph specified shall not exceed $2,500 for all benefits, in the aggregate, for each person.

The benefits required by this Act shall be payable without regard to the fault or nonfault of the named insured or the recipient in causing or contributing to the accident, and without regard to any collateral source of medical, hospital, or wage continuation benefits. An insurer paying benefits pursuant to this Act shall have no right of subrogation and no claim against any other person or insurer to recover any such benefits by reason of the alleged fault of such other person in causing or contributing to the accident.

All payments of benefits prescribed under this Act shall be made periodically as the claims therefor arise and within thirty (30) days after satisfactory proof thereof is received by the insurer subject to the following limitations:

The coverage described in this Act may prescribe a period of not less than six months after the date of accident within which the original proof of loss with respect to a claim for benefits must be presented to the insurer.

The decision in Le v. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. considered whether this statute permitted the State Board of Insurance to promulgate a policy that required a "motor vehicle accident" and concluded that it did. That court reasoned that "[i]t is likely that the statewide cost for injuries which happen to occur in a car is higher than the cost of paying for injuries which result from a motor vehicle accident." It gave deference to the Board, concluding, "[w]e do not find the Board's construction repugnant to the statute."

The reasoning in Le v. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. is sound. It is certainly reasonable and permissible for a policy providing personal injury protection to require the occurrence of a "motor vehicle accident" before coverage is applicable. An insurer paying personal injury protection coverage has no right of subrogation for the fault of another person in causing or contributing to "the accident." does not prohibit automobile policies issued in this state from requiring that the injuries be sustained as a result of a "motor vehicle accident."

However, the court found that a motor vehicle accident occurs when one or more vehicles are involved with another vehicle, an object, or a person, the vehicle is being used as a motor vehicle, and a causal connection exists between the vehicle's use and the injury-producing event, and
driver's injury resulted from a "motor vehicle accident" and entitled him to PIP benefits. Texas Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sturrock, 146 S.W.3d 123 (Tex. 2004).

There is hope out there that your PIP may cover your claim. Give us a call if you have any questions. We are San Antonio Personal Injury Lawyers here to help you! We care about your legal needs.

San Antonio Lawyers and Attorneys

The Baez Law Firm has San Antonio Lawyers and Attorneys helping the legal needs of our community. We do this, because we care about people's legal needs. Our staff members make a difference, and our San Antonio Attorneys will fight for your rights.

We handle not only personal injury, but other areas of law. In the area of personal injury, we have created an accident tool that can help you, in the event of an accident in San Antonio. Our lawyers are here to help you step by step, in the event of an injury as a result of negligence.

We have partner in the area of family law in San Antonio and in Texas, with Cheap Texas Divorce. When people cannot afford an attorney but need a divorce in Texas, Cheap Texas Divorce is the solution for a Texas Divorce. Although we handle divorces, many people cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars for a divorce, but they can afford Cheap Texas Divorce.

When you need a criminal defense lawyer in San Antonio, you need us! We have successfully helped numerous defendants present their cases in court. We handle DWI defense, drug charges, assault and battery, murder, or any felonies and misdemeanors in all courts in Texas. When you need aggressive legal representation for your criminal case, we are here to help.

Regardless of your legal need in San Antonio, when you need a lawyer or attorney in San Antonio, you can count on The Baez Law Firm. Come and see us, and you will see the difference. We have payment plans to help any budget. Do not go to court in San Antonio alone. Have your own legal team helping you.

When you need a Super Lawyer in Antonio, you need The Baez Law Firm.

During a trial, you never know what a juror is thinking!

Jurors are very unpredictable! We know that, there are three kinds of jurors, but during a trial, anyone can change. Specially, if the subject of the trial is controversial, complicated or boring. We saw that this past week in Federal Court, and thus this post.

We believe in the system that we have in America, but, can a juror get it wrong? When both sides have strong arguments, credible witnesses and a lot of facts to back up their story, what do jurors focus on? It would be interesting to know, as a litigator, what those jurors are thinking during your argument, or during your questioning of a particular witness.

What if one side has so much money that, the other side looks ill prepared. What if one side can bring experts, videos and gadgets and the other side can't? Is that equal? What if one side is backed up by an insurance company, and the other one is not?

Our jurisprudence system was created with justice and equality for all. Our founding fathers envisioned a system where, a jury of your peers, would be the judges of the facts. But what if they get it wrong? What if the jurors are confused. What if the jurors fall asleep and the most likable party gets their vote. What if the jurors are so tired, that they just want to leave?

It is an honor to work in a system that is fair and impartial for all. But, is it equal? We believe that, the more green you have, the easier it becomes to get justice for your client. Maybe the more green its spent to prepare for a trial, the better outcome will be for your client. Is that equal? It is fair! And, it is impartial....never equal!

If you are in need of a litigating firm, give us a call (210) 979-9777. Our San Antonio Lawyers will prepare and fight for your rights in court. Our San Antonio law firm is here to help you with your legal needs!

Texas Dram Shop Liability

Many individuals have been injured as a result of alcohol consumption in Texas. Many people don't know that, the person that served them the alcohol, could be liable to them for the injuries suffered. This is called "Dram Shop" laws.

This law allows individuals to bring civil action against a person(s) who serves, sells, or provides alcohol to someone who is visibly intoxicated to the extent that such person presents a clear and obvious danger to self or others.

All the injured party has to do is prove that the intoxicated person was served alcohol after being obviously intoxicated, and the intoxication was the proximate cause of the damage incurred. In other words, the bartender knew you were drunk, but kept on serving you. The Texas Dram Shop Act was passed in 1987 and extended in April 1993.

The Act allows the intoxicated person to sue for damages. There are some obsticles that the injured person has to overcome. Mainly, the Comparative Responsibility Act, which applies to the dram shop laws. This Act holds that the intoxicated person can recover damages, but only if the establishment is more responsible, than the individual, for the individual’s intoxication.

Our lawyers have been sucessful in helping Texans recover against the bars, clubs or other establishments, for Dram Shop liability. If you believe that you were a victim of negligence, please call us at (210) 979-9777.

Auto Accidents in San Antonio

San Antonians just finished with the celebration of a long tradition, Fiesta Week. During Fiesta, there are numerous auto accidents in San Antonio, many of the victims do not seek legal representation. Our Lawyers in San Antonio would like to know why? Why would anyone in San Antonio would go unprotected when they are victims of auto accident? An insurance company will never go to battel without their weapons, why should a victim of an auto accident in San Antonio not do the same?

We have been representing victims of auto accidents in San Antonio and Bexar County sucessfully. Our San Antonio Lawyers and Attorneys handle all types of personal injury cases, including auto accidents, medical malpractice, negligence, police brutality, civil rights violations, trucking accidents, motorcylce accidents, fatalities, wrongful death and much more.

Our San Antonio Lawyers also handle Family Law, Business Law, Criminal Defense, Appeals, Consumer Law and many other areas of law. If you have been injured, as a result of someone's negligence, give us a call (210) 9798-9777.

We are here to help you during difficult times, because we care about your legal needs.

Sample Brief on Motions For New Trial

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND REQUEST OF FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR PREVIOUS DEFAULT JUDGMENT

TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE:

NOW COMES PERSON FILING BRIEF, hereinafter called Movant, and files this Brief in Support of her Motion For A New Trial and Requests for Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the Previous Default Judgment, and in support hereof, shows the Court the following:

I.

Movant would show unto the court that the evidence presented to the Court by Intervenor to obtain the Default Judgment (Order in Plea in Intervention) against the Movant was legally insufficient to support a Default Judgment. More specifically, the Court found a breach on a contract and issued an Order Against Movant, (See Exhibit A), but nothing on the pleadings, contracts or anywhere indicates, and no evidence was presented to the Court that would substantiate a breach by Movant of said contract (See Exhibit B).

The Intervenor failed to present any evidence as to any duty by Movant or any liquidated damages suffered by Intervenor. Moreover, the initial judgment, and any judgement thereafter were obtained against PERSON WHO'S JUDGEMENT IS AGAINST, not against Movant. Finally, the contract between Movant and Intervenor specifically requires Dispute Resolution by Binding Arbitration (Exhibit C), at the request of either party, which was not done in this case prior to obtaining the Default Judgment against Movant. Movant was not properly served with Notice of Default Judgement against her.

II.

Movant incorporates into her Motion For A New Trial Orders for all purposes and the following exhibits, statutory law and case law:

(1) Exhibit A - Order on Plea in Intervention
(2) Exhibit B - Plea in Intervention
(3) Exhibit C- Contract between Movant and Intervenor
(4) Exhibit D- Letters from Movant's former counsel requesting Intervenor=s accounting or performance under the contract
(5) Foley v. Daniel, 346 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2009, no pet.)
(6) Mason v. Mason, 256 S.W.3d 716, 717 (Tex. App.--Hous. [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.)
  (7) Coastal Banc SSB v. Helle, 48 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied).
(8) Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 171.001.
(9) Tex. Fam.Code Ann. '' 6.601, 153.0071 (Vernon 2005 & Supp.2007) III.

On DATE, Movant and Intervenor entered into a contract for legal representation for collection of child support, inter alias. There was a proviso within the contract that required in the pertinent parts Aat any parties request, any and all disputes arising out of this contract...all parties hereby agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration. Movant had, in multiple times requested a resolution of the problems by arbitration, but it has not been done.

On DATE, Intervenor filed his Plea in Intevention. Nothing was done on the case for over three years. Almost three years later, Intervenor sets the an Amended Plea in Intervention, Amended Notice of hearing but failed to served on the Movant the Amended Pleading. Movant requested time and time again from Intervenor, to show performance under the contract, but Intervenor has failed to prove any. Movan was given multiple excuses, including that a former assistant has quit and that the billing person had dies of cancer; nevertheless, Intervenor has never shown performance under the contract.

 On DATE, Intervenor Defaulted Movant and obtained a judgment against her knowledge. No evidence was presented to the court as to any of the elements of any alleged breach of contract. The Intervenor obtained judgements against Movant for liquidated damages that were never proven in Court. Movant has multiple Rule 94 Affirmative Defenses of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to laches, statute of limitations, failure to perform, estoppel, and many others on the case that she was prevented from submitting to the Court by not been properly noticed.

 IV.

The elements of a claim for Abreach of contract are:

(1) the existence of a valid contract;
(2) performance or tendered performance by the plaintiff;
 (3) breach of the contract by the defendant; and
 (4) damages to the plaintiff resulting from that breach. Foley v. Daniel, 346 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2009, no pet.) Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 171.001.

Intervenor has not presented sufficient evidence to support his performance under the contract, that a breach occurred on the contract, or any damages arising therefrom. Texas strongly encourages alternative dispute resolution, particularly in family law matters. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. ' 154.002 (Vernon 2005).

The Family Code expressly permits binding arbitration in divorce and SAPCR cases. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. '' 6.601, 153.0071 (Vernon 2005 & Supp.2007). Mason v. Mason, 256 S.W.3d 716, 717 (Tex. App.--Hous. [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) These Intervention should had been handle by Binding Arbitration as requested by Movant and not by litigation as obtained by Intervenor. When a trial court fails to comply with the rules of notice, a party is deprived of his constitutional right to be present at the hearing, to voice his objections in an appropriate manner, and results in a violation of fundamental due process. Coastal Banc SSB v. Helle, 48 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied).

A default judgment cannot be sustained where no notice of the default judgment hearing was given to a defendant who has appeared. Id. V. Movant was prevented from presenting her Affirmative Defenses and or case in front of an Arbitrator as required by the contract at issue. Movant was not properly served with a Notice of Default Judgment as required by law, since she made a general appearance in the case prior to the default. Intervenor presented no evidence to substantiate a judgment against Movant. There was not evidence to support breach, performance or damages.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Movant prays that the Court grant the New Trial; in the alternative, that the Court require the parties to arbitrate the case; In the event that the New Trial is not granted, the Court to issue findings of facts and conclusions of law as to the Default Judgment and Order on Plea in Intervention; and that Movant have such other and further relief at law or in equity to which Movant may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted.

Our San Antonio Lawyers, San Antonio Attorneys, San Antonio Abogados are here to help you with your legal needs. Give us a call (210) 979-9777.

CrossFit Regional Games at Freeman Coliseum

Mr. Baez has been selected as one of the judges for the prestigious Crossfit Regional Games at the Freeman Coliseum from April 27 to April 29, 2012. The 2012 CrossFit Games Open began two months ago, marking the start of the sixth endeavor to find the fittest human beings on the planet. This includes men, woman and teams. The news article There are 60 men, 60 women and 30 teams that have advanced to the Regional Games in San Antonio this year. Mike Martinez, from Fitness Porvida is the regional director for the Regional Games. Hope to see you all there!

San Antonio Attorney Edgardo Baez named by Super Lawyers Magazine

San Antonio, Texas attorney Edgardo R. Baez of The Baez Law Firm, P.C. has been named by Texas Super Lawyers magazine as one of the top attorneys in Texas for 2012. Only five percent of the lawyers in the state are named by Super Lawyers.

How is this done? The selections for this esteemed list are made by the research team at Super Lawyers, which is a service of the Thomson Reuters. Each year, the research team at Super Lawyers undertakes a rigorous multi-phase selection process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent evaluation of candidates by the attorney-led research staff, a peer review of candidates by practice area, and a good-standing and disciplinary check.

The Super Lawyers Magazine was first published in 1991 by Law & Politics and was acquired by Thomson Reuters, Legal in February 2010. Thomson Reuters is the world’s leading source of intelligent information for businesses and professionals. Super Lawyers can be found online where lawyers can be searched by schools, practice area and location.

To read Mr. Baez profile, click here.

Auto Accident Tools for San Antonio

Be prepared with the Auto Accident App!

Why download Auto Accident App?

The Car Crash application is one of those things you don’t think you will ever need, until you do. And when you do, you’ll be glad you took a few seconds to download it. Auto Accident App provides straightforward to-do’s, fact and evidence gathering tools to ensure you or your loved one are informed and protected when moving vehicle accidents happen. None of us like to think about it, but auto accidents do happen.

Auto Accident App features:

- Camera, voice recorder, text notepad and drawing pad provide all you will need to
record all of the pertinent data about any moving vehicle accident.
- Invaluable FAQ section containing important information about the appropriate procedures to prepare for and handle any moving vehicle accident.
- Time saving forms to clearly collect accident information from the other parties (drivers, witnesses, passengers etc.)
- Automatic GPS locator which aides in recording critical accident facts like traffic patterns and driving conditions.
- Call emergency number 911 or instantly contact our law firm.

Our FREE Auto Accident Application

Why are personal injury lawyers so passionate about their work?

When most people see an auto accident, or witness an assault or battery or have a injury as a result of an event, they see blood, they hear pain, they see the injury. Personal Injury Lawyers see duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages. They instill this words on us in law school.

But, that is not why we are passionate about what we do. For the most part, is not the fact that we may collect on our client's injury. Is the fact that, we try to bring life back to normal for our clients and their families as much as we can. If personal injury lawyers would not take on difficult cases for our clients, our clients would never have the opportunity to get back to a normal life.

Many people that come to us have seen first hand the techniques that insurance companies use in order to protect their interest. They attempt to make the injured person feel like its their fault, and not their clients who caused the injury. Many times the adjusters for the insurance companies try to make friends with the injured person, just to have the statute of limitations period run.

You are not in "good hands" or protected from "mayhem's" if you are the injured person. When you are injured as a result of some one's negligence, you need a personal injury lawyer on your side.

Our Law Firm has been helping injured victims when insurance companies have tried to minimize their claims. If you have been a victim of a vehicle accident, or if you have severe injuries, broken bones, lacerations, scars or even know of someone who was wrongfully killed, you need a personal injury lawyer.

If you have been a victim of a vehicle accident, a medical malpt\ractice, a wrongful death, a battery, and assault and have suffered severe injuries, give us a call. Our San Antonio Lawyers are here for you. That is why we say, "we care about your legal needs."

Why do you need a lawyer for your auto accident?

Prime time TV has made millions of dollars based on reality shows, or supposedly reality shows like The Practice, Law and Order, Boston Legal and many more. TV stations also bombard us with more reality shows in the form of Judge Judy, The People’s Court, Judge Mathis and many more. This has created a phenomena that I like to call “TV lawyer syndrom.” In essence, people are lead to believe that they too can take care of their legal matters.

Our San Antonio Lawyers have seen an increase of the so called “TV lawyers” based on the fact that most people now know the law (since they have watched it on TV). In the are of Auto Accidents, there is no exceptions. Unfortunately, insurance companies have taken advantage of this situation. In Texas, now with the passing of new laws, the injured is at risk of losing it even more!

When you are a victim of an auto accident, please, contact a lawyer. We have seen an increase of case where the liability was clear, yet the client decided to do it for him/her self, two years later, the insurance companies have an affirmative defense of “statute of limitations” since the injured person did not file a complaint on time. Insurance wins.

What you see on TV from insurance companies that “you are in good hands” and that “we are always there,” are only sales pitches from the insurance industry. They are not there to protect you, they are there to protect their bottom line, not yours. Insurance companies have at their disposal, thousands of lawyers to handle their cases. Why not you?

Our Law Firm has handle thousands of auto accident cases in San Antonio successfully. Our injury lawyers and attorneys can help you get what you deserve. You do not pay us, unless we win the case for you. Is that simple. This is a fact that insurance companies don’t want you to know. You do not have to represent yourself in an auto accident. Let us do it for you! After all, you would not do your own brain surgery, would you? Of course not!

We have created a simple way to help yo during and accident. Just visit the Android Market Place or the iTune Store and download our FREE Auto Accident Application. You will be glad that you did. Because, its better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it!!!