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

Lambert v. Affiliated Foods, Inc.

Danny Lee Lambert and his family appealed a trial court's summary judgment favoring Affiliated Foods, Inc., on a personal injury claim. Lambert, injured while employed by non-subscriber Affiliated, had waived his right to sue in exchange for benefits from the company's disability plan. After accepting $57,698.32 in benefits, Lambert filed suit, but the trial court upheld Affiliated's defenses of waiver, ratification, and estoppel. On appeal, Lambert contended the waiver was void against public policy and argued that the plan benefits were not equivalent to workers' compensation. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, declining to invalidate the waiver on public policy grounds and citing prior case law that upheld such waivers against non-subscribing employers.

Workers' Compensation Non-SubscriberWaiver of RightsEmployment AgreementPublic PolicySummary Judgment AppealPersonal InjuryEmployer Disability Benefit PlanEstoppel DefenseRatification DefenseSeparation of Powers
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

World Trading Corp. v. Kolchin

The plaintiff sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from arbitrating disputes, arguing that the defendant union's change in affiliation from the American Federation of Labor to the Committee for Industrial Organization, along with a name change, altered its legal entity and invalidated their contract. The court disagreed, holding that a union's identity, structure, operation, constitution, by-laws, officers, and membership remain the same despite changes in affiliation and name. The court affirmed that such changes do not affect the union's rights or responsibilities under existing contracts. Therefore, the court found no basis to support the plaintiff's contention.

union affiliationarbitration disputeinjunctioncontract validityorganizational identitylabor lawname changelegal entitytrade unionsAmerican Federation of Labor
References
2
Case No. 13-13-00711-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2015

Octavio Raya v. Rio Management Company, LLC and Wyatt Hidalgo Farms, Inc.

Appellant Octavio Raya appealed the trial court's decision affirming an arbitrator's take-nothing judgment in favor of appellees Rio Management Company, LLC and Wyatt Hidalgo Farms, Inc. Raya, an employee of Rio, had signed an arbitration agreement and subsequently suffered injuries on Wyatt's property, leading him to sue both entities. He contended that Wyatt, an affiliated company, was not a proper party to the arbitration agreement due to a misnomer and lack of direct signatory status. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Wyatt was bound by the arbitration agreement as an affiliated entity of Rio, and any misnomer did not invalidate the agreement. Consequently, Raya's claims against both Rio and Wyatt were properly subjected to arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementNonsignatory BindingCorporate AffiliationMisnomerFederal Arbitration ActSummary Judgment ConfirmationTake-Nothing JudgmentAppellate Review StandardContract FormationScope of Employment
References
23
Case No. 05-16-00784-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2018

Tonya Parks and Parks Realty Firm, LLC v. Affiliated Bank, Affiliated Bank FSB, Affiliated Bank, Inc., Bancaffiliated, Inc., Joshua Campbell, Katherine Campbell

The appellant, Tonya Parks and Parks Realty Firm, LLC, files a motion for en banc reconsideration and modification of the Fifth District Court of Appeals' May 3, 2018, memorandum opinion which dismissed their appeal. The appellant contends the appellate court erred by dismissing the appeal and affirming the trial court's decision, arguing that the original settlement agreement was coerced and made under duress due to judicial misconduct, conflicts of interest, and misrepresentation of civil procedure rules. The motion details alleged improprieties by trial court judges (Judge Sally Montgomery, Judge Ted Akin) and defense attorneys, including ex parte communications, false statements about legal procedures, and an unsafe court environment. The appellant seeks to reverse the lower court's findings and orders, including the dismissal of their claims against Affiliated Bank and the Campbells, and to obtain a fair trial and damages for defamation and other harms.

Appellate ProcedureMotion for ReconsiderationJudicial MisconductCoercion and DuressRule 11 AgreementTexas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA)Conflict of InterestLegal EthicsDefamationDismissal of Appeal
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hawkins v. Case Management Inc.

Woodrow Jerry Hawkins sued Case Management, Inc. (CMI) and Rasaline McGee for allegedly failing to inform him of his rights under the Tennessee Criminal Injury Compensation Fund after he was involved in a physical altercation. The General Sessions Court initially ruled in favor of the defendants. Hawkins appealed to the Shelby County Circuit Court, which granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding them immune under T.C.A. § 40-38-108. This order was later vacated due to Hawkins' medical condition, but the trial court subsequently re-entered summary judgment for the defendants on the same immunity grounds. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, broadly interpreting T.C.A. § 40-38-108 to extend immunity to CMI as an 'entity' and McGee as an 'official' within that entity, regardless of governmental affiliation.

Summary JudgmentStatutory ImmunityVictims of Crime ActCriminal Injury CompensationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationNon-Profit LiabilityOfficial ImmunityTennessee LawCivil Procedure Rule 60.02
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Hidalgo County Texas, Inc. v. Suehs

The court granted a preliminary injunction against Thomas M. Suehs, Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, to prevent the enforcement of new administrative rules. These rules redefined 'affiliate' and 'promote' in a state law, effectively excluding nine Planned Parenthood organizations from Texas’s Women’s Health Program. Plaintiffs argued that these conditions infringed upon their First Amendment rights to free speech and association, and their Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court found a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for the First Amendment claims, noting the rule's broad definition of 'affiliate' prevented the creation of legally distinct entities. The court determined that the plaintiffs faced irreparable harm, which outweighed any potential harm to the state, and that the public interest in maintaining access to crucial health services for thousands of low-income women favored granting the injunction.

Abortion RightsWomen's Health ProgramFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationUnconstitutional ConditionsEqual ProtectionPreliminary InjunctionTexas LawState Funding
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2006

Hughes v. LaSalle Bank, N.A.

Plaintiffs Dion, Hal, and Holly Hughes, beneficiaries of the Hughes Trust, sued LaSalle Bank, N.A., and its affiliates (ABN-AMRO entities, LSCM) in federal court, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment. Their claims stemmed from LaSalle's 1993 conversion of trust assets into the underperforming Rembrandt Funds, managed by an affiliate, which allegedly resulted in excessive fees and adverse tax consequences. Plaintiffs moved for class certification and summary judgment, while defendants sought to dismiss the complaint based on statute of limitations and the plaintiffs' consent or ratification. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the claims of Dion and Hal Hughes were time-barred by Texas's four-year statute of limitations. Holly Hughes's claims for monetary relief were also time-barred by New York's three-year statute of limitations, and her equitable claims were dismissed due to her consent to and ratification of the investment conversion, as she had sufficient material information.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentTortious InterferenceStatute of LimitationsChoice of LawClass ActionMotion to DismissTrust LawTrustee LiabilityInvestment Management
References
50
Case No. 03-13-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2014

Texas Department of State Health Services And Kyle Janek, in His Official Capacity as Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Marcela Balquinta Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and Preventative Health Services, Inc. Planned Parenthood Association of Hidalgo County Texas, Inc. Planned Parenthood Association of Lubbock, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning judicial jurisdiction and procedure regarding the exclusion of Planned Parenthood entities from the Texas Women’s Health Program (TWHP), a state-funded health benefits program. The Planned Parenthood entities, along with an enrollee, challenged new administrative rules implemented by the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and its Executive Commissioner, Kyle Janek, which barred providers affiliated with organizations that perform or promote elective abortions. The appellate court analyzed whether the plaintiffs had constitutional standing and if the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over their claims, including those filed under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA). The court affirmed the district court's jurisdiction over the APA claims and requests for injunctive relief, finding a waiver of sovereign immunity under APA section 2001.038. However, it reversed and rendered judgment dismissing the UDJA claims, deeming them either redundant of the APA claims or not yet ripe for resolution.

Abortion PolicyWomen's Health ProgramMedicaidPlanned ParenthoodTexas Health PolicyStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentSovereign ImmunityConstitutional Standing
References
68
Case No. 10-99-190-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 1999

City of Ennis, a Self-Insured Governmental Entity v. William J. Bryant

William J. Bryant filed a lawsuit against the City of Ennis seeking worker's compensation disability benefits due to a heart attack sustained during his employment as a police officer. A jury found in favor of Bryant, prompting the City of Ennis to appeal the decision. Prior to a ruling on the appeal, both parties reached a settlement agreement and filed an 'Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Cause'. In response, the Tenth Court of Appeals, citing Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a) and 43.2(e), granted the motion, vacated the trial court's judgment, and dismissed the case, with costs taxed against the party incurring them.

Worker's CompensationDisability BenefitsHeart AttackPolice OfficerAppellate ReviewSettlement AgreementDismissal of AppealVacated JudgmentSelf-Insured EmployerGovernmental Entity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Affiliated Capital Corp. v. City of Houston

This antitrust case involves Affiliated Capital's claim against Gulf Coast, the City of Houston, and Mayor Jim McConn for an alleged conspiracy to limit competition for cable television franchises in Houston. The jury found that a conspiracy existed but that the boundary agreements, central to the plaintiff's primary theory, were not part of an illegal conspiracy. The court ultimately granted the defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, determining that there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the found conspiracy and the plaintiff's failure to secure a franchise, outside of the boundary agreements. The court also denied the plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief due to a lack of standing, and analyzed the inapplicability of Noerr-Pennington immunity and state action exemption to the defendants' conduct, had the plaintiff prevailed on the causation issue.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCable Television FranchisesMunicipal LawConspiracyNoerr-Pennington DoctrineState Action ExemptionJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictCausationInjunctive Relief
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 966 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