Obtained appellate ruling in favor of a mobile phone manufacturer against allegations the client’s technology led to the death of a 9-1-1 caller. A team of Munsch Hardt attorneys obtained Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the underlying claims in litigation before a federal trial court, because the plaintiffs could not establish a causal link between the operation of the mobile phone and the caller’s death. Nolan briefed and presented oral argument in the subsequent appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the lack of a causal relationship to the 9-1-1 caller’s death and further ruled mobile phone manufacturers, as well as data service providers, are beneficiaries of a Texas “Immunity” statute that applies to equipment or services used for 9-1-1 calls.

Obtained appellate ruling preventing the offshore transfer of more than $20 MM in avoidance of a judgment debt. During the second Gulf War, Nolan’s eventual client participated in a contract to transport fuel to U.S. troops in Iraq but was defrauded by other participants who funneled approximately $28 MM out of the enterprise to avoid sharing profits. The eventual client filed suit and obtained a judgment in Florida state court. The judgment was domesticated in Texas by a team of Munsch Hardt attorneys, who thereafter obtained a temporary injunction to prevent the judgment debtor and his “alter ego” from transferring $21.8 MM offshore to avoid collection efforts in Texas. The judgment debtor sought appellate review from the Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals, seeking to reverse the temporary injunction and transfer the funds beyond the jurisdictional reach of United States courts. Nolan briefed and presented oral argument to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, which denied the judgment debtor’s request and affirmed the temporary injunction forbidding transfer of the funds.

Represented client in a malicious prosecution claim against the United States to remedy a wrongful prosecution initiated 14 years prior. In 1999, Nolan’s eventual client and various co-defendants were wrongfully indicted for allegedly handling or transporting hazardous waste in violation of federal laws. The United States dismissed the charges approximately four years later, when a federal district court excluded the testimony of a “confidential informant” who would have served as the United States’ key witness. Shortly thereafter, a co-defendant from the criminal prosecution initiated a civil claim against the United States for malicious prosecution, premised on the United States’ decision to pursue charges based on accounts from the unreliable informant. Nolan’s eventual client declined to join that malicious prosecution suit, because legal principles made it evident there was no good faith basis to do so. That action nonetheless drug on for years, when a series of fortuitous events revealed criminal investigative agents for the United States had manipulated evidence and misled other United States representatives to procure the indictment in 1999. On behalf of his by-then client, Nolan filed a malicious prosecution claim in August 2013—approximately ten years after the criminal charges had been dismissed. A federal district court dismissed the claims as time barred. Nolan appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where he briefed and presented oral argument to persuade the court the United States fraudulently concealed key facts necessary for the malicious prosecution claim to have accrued. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case, reviving the malicious prosecution claim.