Johnny Carter fights for the success of his clients in trials and arbitrations; in all sorts of cases; in Texas, Louisiana, and elsewhere around the country.
Victor Ma hired Carter in August 2018, after the close of discovery, to try his company’s breach-of-contract case against a customer which claimed that it was not obligated to pay for product. After a verdict awarding the full amount sought by Mr. Ma’s company, he wrote a letter describing Carter's work to bring the case to a successful verdict. Click here to view the letter.
Shelby Longoria hired Carter to represent him in a long-running family dispute in probate court relating to the estates of his mother and father. At the successful conclusion of that dispute, Mr. Longoria wrote him a letter expressing his appreciation for Carter's “level of professionalism, legal expertise, and attention to detail”. Click here to view the letter.
Lawdragon Honors
| Honor | Year | Practice |
|---|---|---|
| The 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America | 2026 | Complex Litigation, Plaintiff |
| The 2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers | 2025 | Commercial Litigation |
| The 2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America | 2025 | Complex Litigation, Plaintiff |
| The 2024 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers | 2024 | Commercial Litigation |
| The 2024 Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America | 2024 | Complex Litigation |
| The 2023 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers | 2023 | Commercial Litigation |
| The 2022 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers | 2022 | Commercial Litigation |
| Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America | 2022 | Complex Litigation |
| The 2021 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers | 2021 | Commercial Litigation |
| The 2020 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers | 2020 | Commercial Litigation |
| Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers | 2019 | Business Litigation |
After Carter's representation of Chemjet, Inc. in a commercial dispute, Chemjet’s general counsel wrote him a letter expressing his appreciation of the team’s strategic decisions and superior briefing. Click here to view the letter.
After he successfully defended Houston MediaSource, a small media company, in a trial alleging First Amendment violations, Carter received an award recognizing Susman Godfrey’s contributions to the client’s mission.
In a case called Winthrop v. Seitel, Carter represented a leasing company that had been hit with an ex parte temporary restraining order, so that it could not repossess millions of dollars of equipment that the lessee was paying for. After expedited discovery and a bench trial, he persuaded a Texas court to deny the lessee’s request for an injunction and to dismiss the lessee’s entire lawsuit. The case settled a few months later, with the lessee agreeing to pay over $7.8 million plus attorney’s fees.
Carter represented AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation in a two-week arbitration in which the opposing party sought over $30 million in damages. He handled damages issues in the case, and the arbitration panel awarded no damages to the opposing party.
While Carter loves to try cases, sometimes the best outcome for a client is to succeed without having to go to trial. That is what happened for his client, PEG Bandwidth TX, LLC, which received summary judgment on liability on its breach of contract claim. The case settled shortly thereafter. Read the court’s opinion here.
Carter represented Houston’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority in a suit filed by a resident who sought to prevent METRO from building a light-rail line. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety. Read the court of appeals’ opinion affirming the dismissal.
Carter represented ACE Limited in a derivative case brought by shareholders of AIG in Delaware Chancery Court. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.
Carter represented foreign banana workers in lawsuits against chemical manufacturers and banana growers. The clients alleged that they had been sterilized by exposure to a nematocide called dibromochloropropane (DBCP), which had been used on banana plantations throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s. Throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s, banana worker cases throughout the United States, brought by many different law firms, were routinely dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens. However, on the strength of his briefing, Carter's clients were able to defeat forum non conveniens dismissal for the first time. Read the court opinion here: [Canales Martinez opinion]