CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seguros Comercial Americas S.A. De C v. v. American President Lines, Ltd.

This case involves Seguros Comercial America, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican insurance company, as the subrogee of RBK International (Mexico), suing American President Lines, Ltd. (APL) for negligence. The dispute arose from the hijacking of a container of Reebok Tennis shoes during overland transport in Mexico, after being shipped from Indonesia. The court examined the applicability of the Carmack Amendment and the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), concluding that neither applied by force of law to the entire shipment, and that the Mexico Liability Clause in the bill of lading contractually extended Mexican law to the overland portion in Mexico. Consequently, the court granted APL's motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, finding Mexico to be an available and adequate alternative forum with a stronger nexus to the localized controversy and Mexican law governing the dispute.

Forum Non ConveniensCarriage of Goods by Sea ActCarmack AmendmentChoice of LawBill of LadingInternational ShippingCargo TheftMaritime CommerceNegligence LitigationJurisdictional Dispute
References
55
Case No. 03-15-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2015

Gregory Joe Wickline v. Board of Regents for the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges, Acting for and on Behalf of Oklahoma State University And James Michael Holder, in His Individual Capacity and in His Capacity as Vice President for Athletic Programs and Director Of

Coach Gregory Joe Wickline terminated his employment with Oklahoma State University (OSU) to become the Offensive Coordinator at the University of Texas (UT). OSU and its Athletic Director, James Michael Holder, alleged Wickline's new role did not meet the 'safe harbor' provision of his OSU contract, which would have excused him from paying liquidated damages for early termination. OSU sued Wickline in Oklahoma for breach of contract. Wickline then filed a lawsuit in Texas seeking a declaratory judgment to construe the contract's 'Offensive Coordinator (with play calling duties)' phrase and alleging tortious interference with his UT contract. The trial court in Travis County, Texas, dismissed Wickline's claims without prejudice based on a mandatory forum-selection clause in the OSU contract.

Contractual DisputeForum Selection ClauseTortious InterferenceDeclaratory JudgmentEmployment ContractCoaching DisputeLiquidated DamagesOklahoma State UniversityUniversity of TexasJudicial Interpretation
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2012

In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in a securities fraud lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation (BofA) concerning alleged misstatements and omissions related to its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. The claims were brought under both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The Court, presided over by District Judge P. Kevin Castel, granted the motion to certify all proposed classes, including those for 1934 Act claims, 1933 Act claims, and purchasers of January 2011 call options. The Court found that the plaintiffs satisfied all Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements for class certification, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding the merits of the Section 14(a) claim, the rebuttable presumptions of reliance, and the scope of the class definitions. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP were appointed as class counsel.

Class ActionSecurities FraudRule 23 CertificationPredominance RequirementNumerosity RequirementCommonality RequirementTypicality RequirementAdequacy of RepresentationSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Securities Act of 1933
References
63
Case No. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co.

This action was brought by employees of Volunteer Ordnance Works against their employer, operating under a government contract, seeking unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The dispute centered on whether time spent at plant gates and in transit on the employer's premises constituted compensable working time. The court found that while the Fair Labor Standards Act generally applied to government contracts and the plaintiffs were engaged in the production of goods for commerce, the specific time claimed was not part of a statutory workweek, particularly considering the wartime context and the benefit to the national war effort. Furthermore, the court determined that the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 barred the plaintiffs' claims and affirmed the constitutionality of its provisions, including Section 9, which provides a defense for employers acting in good faith reliance on administrative interpretations. Consequently, judgment was awarded to the defendant.

Overtime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActPortal-to-Portal ActWartime ProductionGovernment ContractorsEmployee WagesStatutory WorkweekJurisdictionConstitutional LawDe Minimis Rule
References
17
Case No. ADJ7184070
Regular
Aug 17, 2016

ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ vs. PACIFIC EXTERIORS, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's Petition for Removal and Disqualification of the WCJ. The lien claimant sought to challenge an order rescinding an earlier lien allowance and a notice of intent to sanction them for allegedly obtaining a settlement without proper authority. The Board found that the lien claimant had adequate recourse through a petition for reconsideration regarding sanctions and that the disqualification allegations were not supported by the record. The WCJ acted appropriately by rescinding the order when concerns were raised, and no bias was demonstrated.

Petition for RemovalWCJLien ClaimantSanctionsDisqualificationCompromise and ReleaseLabor CodeAdministrative Law JudgeOrder Re: LienPetition for Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southern S. S. Co. v. Sheppeard

The Southern Steamship Company initiated an equity action under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act to enjoin an award made by a commissioner in favor of Cisro Cummings. Cummings had sustained a thumb injury, leading to amputation, and subsequently signed a release for $260 and re-employment with the company. The commissioner, after a hearing, found that Cummings was statutorily entitled to more compensation than he received and issued an award for the balance. The court, presided over by Judge Hutcheson, determined that the settlement agreement was not properly before it in this injunctive proceeding and upheld the commissioner's award, citing the invalidity of any agreement by an employee to waive compensation rights under the Act. Consequently, the court denied the injunction.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActEquity ActionInjunctionSettlement AgreementWaiver of Compensation RightsRelease ValidityAmputation InjuryWorker's Compensation AwardJudicial ReviewFederal Statute Interpretation
References
2
Case No. 03-07-00725-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2009

City of San Antonio Acting by and Through City Public Service Board N/K/A CPS Energy v. Bastrop Central Appraisal District and Chief Appraiser Mark Boehnke

The City of San Antonio, through CPS Energy, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Bastrop Central Appraisal District (BCAD) and its chief appraiser to act on an untimely application for an open-space agricultural appraisal for 1999-2002. CPS Energy's land, previously tax-exempt for public use, lost this status retroactively after BCAD discovered a lignite mining lease with Alcoa. Although BCAD processed a similar application for 2003, it took no action on the earlier untimely applications. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of mandamus, holding that BCAD had no statutory duty to act on applications filed after appraisal records approval and that CPS Energy's due-process rights were not violated, as they had opportunities to file timely applications. The court also rejected CPS Energy's estoppel argument against BCAD.

Property Tax LawAppellate ProcedureMandamus ActionStatutory InterpretationDue Process RightsTax Exemption RevocationOpen-Space Agricultural AppraisalUntimely ApplicationGovernmental EstoppelTexas Tax Code
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 13,604 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational