On Edge of Houston, Underground Caverns Store Huge Quantities of Natural Gas Liquids. Houston Public Media. Dave Fehling, October 19, 2015.

•  “Surprise: Judge’s Handout Most Punitive Awards.” Wall Street Journal. Jess Bravin, June 12, 2000.

A study by the U.S. Justice Department found that judges award higher punitive damages than juries. Mr. Garnett’s verdict in the Brenham explosion case is featured as an example of alarge punitive damage award by a jury.

•  “Court’s Decision on Blast Damages not Considered a Setback.” The Brenham Banner Press. Arthur Hahn, January 3, 1999.

Mr. Garnett is quoted in this news story about the Houston Courts of Appeals decision in the Brenham explosion case: “He considers the appeals court’s ruling a ‘victory’ for his clients.”

• “New Ruling Weakens Cap on Damages.” The Wall Street Journal. Mary Flood,
  November 4, 1998.

Mr. Garnett was asked about the conservatism of Texas appellate courts at the time the Court of Appeals upheld the Brenham explosion case. He replied, “Only one or two in thirty cases of punitive damages awards are upheld because of the high bar from the Supreme Court and the conservative judiciary.”

•  “Gas Pipeline Companies Want a New Trial.” Bryan-College Station Eagle. Sam
  Lawrence, March 8, 1996.

Mr. Garnett said that his clients will fight Seminole Pipeline Company’s legal motions toreduce the damages awarded to Mr. Garnett’s clients.

•  “Firms Told to Pay for Brenham Blast.” Houston Chronicle. George Flynn, February 13,1996.

Mr. Garnett is hopeful that his clients’ victory in the Brenham explosion case will prevent an explosion like this from happening again. Despite opposition to the reopening of the salt dome storage facility, Mr. Garnett said, “residents will never be sure if Seminole will try again to make it operational.”

•  “Surprise: Judge’s Handout Most Punitive Awards.” Wall Street Journal. Jess Bravin, June 12, 2000.

A study by the U.S. Justice Department found that judges award higher punitive damages than juries. Mr. Garnett’s verdict in the Brenham explosion case is featured as an example of alarge punitive damage award by a jury.

•  “Court’s Decision on Blast Damages not Considered a Setback.” The Brenham Banner Press. Arthur Hahn, January 3, 1999.

Mr. Garnett is quoted in this news story about the Houston Courts of Appeals decision in the Brenham explosion case: “He considers the appeals court’s ruling a ‘victory’ for his clients.”

• “New Ruling Weakens Cap on Damages.” The Wall Street Journal. Mary Flood,
  November 4, 1998.

Mr. Garnett was asked about the conservatism of Texas appellate courts at the time the Court of Appeals upheld the Brenham explosion case. He replied, “Only one or two in thirty cases of punitive damages awards are upheld because of the high bar from the Supreme Court and the conservative judiciary.”

•  “Gas Pipeline Companies Want a New Trial.” Bryan-College Station Eagle. Sam
  Lawrence, March 8, 1996.

Mr. Garnett said that his clients will fight Seminole Pipeline Company’s legal motions toreduce the damages awarded to Mr. Garnett’s clients.

•  “Firms Told to Pay for Brenham Blast.” Houston Chronicle. George Flynn, February 13,1996.

Mr. Garnett is hopeful that his clients’ victory in the Brenham explosion case will prevent an explosion like this from happening again. Despite opposition to the reopening of the salt dome storage facility, Mr. Garnett said, “residents will never be sure if Seminole will try again to make it operational.”