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. 03-04-00050-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. v. the Texas FAIR Plan Association The Texas Department of Insurance And Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance

Appellant Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of the Texas FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan). Al Boenker had challenged a bulletin issued by FAIR Plan, which restricted fees insurance agencies could charge for homeowners insurance applications and allowed for termination of agencies violating the contract. Al Boenker argued that FAIR Plan violated the separation-of-powers doctrine and exceeded its statutory authority. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that FAIR Plan is not a state agency subject to the Texas Administrative Procedure Act's rulemaking provisions and acted within its authority derived from the FAIR Plan Act and its Plan of Operation by contractually limiting agent compensation and establishing conditions for agent termination.

Administrative LawInsurance LawContract LawSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionAgency AuthoritySeparation of PowersStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
Case No. M2023-00812-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2024

Stephanie Garner v. State of Tennessee, and its agency, Tennessee Department of Correction

Plaintiff Stephanie Garner sued the State of Tennessee and its agency, the Tennessee Department of Correction, alleging disability discrimination for refusal to hire. A jury found in Garner's favor, awarding $10,000 for lost wages and $5,000 in compensatory damages. Garner's counsel then sought nearly $700,000 in attorney fees, which the trial court reduced by 25% to $511,620. The Department appealed the fee award, arguing it was excessive and based on an incorrect legal standard. The Court of Appeals vacated the attorney fee award and remanded the case, citing the trial court's failure to provide clear and thorough explanations for its decision based on the factors outlined in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, RPC 1.5.

Disability DiscriminationAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionTennessee Disability ActRule of Professional Conduct 1.5Excessive BillingVacate and RemandProportionality ArgumentLegal Standards
References
68
Case No. 15-24-00066-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Richard Mark Dudley and Deanie Palmer Dudley v. Texas Municipal Power Agency

This document is a reply brief filed by Richard Mark Dudley and Deanie Palmer Dudley (Appellants) against Texas Municipal Power Agency (Appellee). The brief addresses several points on appeal from the 272nd District Court, Brazos County, Texas. Key arguments include that the trial court's declaratory relief improperly expanded and rewrote the Easement, particularly concerning TMPA's discretion and the interpretation of "wall" versus "fence." The appellants also argue that TMPA incorrectly relied on Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §37.011 for injunctive relief without proper pleading or proof, and failed to meet requirements under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. A significant portion of the brief challenges the award of attorney's fees to TMPA, asserting that TMPA failed to provide sufficient evidence for reasonable hourly rates and hours worked, and that the trial court abused its discretion in the award's amount. The Dudleys request the appellate court to reverse the trial court’s judgment, vacate declaratory judgments and permanent injunctions, and deny TMPA’s attorney’s fees claims, or alternatively, reverse and remand the case.

Easement RightsDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent InjunctionAttorney's FeesAppellate ProcedureLodestar MethodHourly RatesTrial Court DiscretionPleadingsBrazos County
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2012

Fred Loya Insurance Agency, Inc., and Loya Insurance Company v. Martin W. Cohen, Martin W. Cohen & Co., and Nehoc Advisors, Inc.

This case involves a double appeal concerning competing motions for summary judgment between Fred Loya Insurance Agency, Inc. and Loya Insurance Company (collectively 'Loya') and Martin W. Cohen, Martin W. Cohen & Company, and Nehoc Advisors, Inc. (collectively 'Cohen'). Loya challenged the summary judgment granted to Cohen on Loya's breach of fiduciary duty claim and the award of attorney's fees. Cohen cross-appealed orders striking an affidavit, granting Loya's summary judgment motions, and denying Cohen's motion to reconsider. The core dispute revolved around a verbal 1% Agreement for accounting and lobbying services, its terminability at will, and related claims of breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent inducement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the termination of the 1% Agreement at will and rejecting Loya's breach of fiduciary duty claim and Cohen's fraudulent inducement claim, while also affirming the award of attorney's fees based on intertwined claims.

Contract LawSummary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent InducementAttorney's FeesAt-Will ContractAgency RelationshipIndependent ContractorContract TerminationAppellate Review
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Education Agency v. Maxwell

This case involves the constitutionality of former TEX.EDUC.CODE § 35.030, which mandated confidentiality for TAAS tests and prevented parents from viewing them. Larry Maxwell and other parents sued the Texas Education Agency and other defendants, asserting violations of their constitutional rights, particularly their fundamental right to direct their children's upbringing and education. The trial court initially found the statute unconstitutional and issued an injunction. However, while the appeal was pending, the legislature repealed Section 35.030, rendering the core constitutional issue moot. The appellate court vacated the injunction as moot but reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on attorney's fees, finding that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 despite the mootness of the primary issue.

Parental RightsEducation LawConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentMootness DoctrineAttorney's FeesCivil RightsTexas Education CodeTAAS Tests
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2001

Silva v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency

Jose Silva, an employee of Mar Jea Equipment, Inc., was allegedly injured during construction work on property owned by the Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency. Silva sued the Agency for personal injuries. The Agency, in turn, initiated a third-party action against Mar Jea for indemnification. Mar Jea moved to dismiss this third-party complaint, arguing that the Agency's claim for common-law indemnification was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Although the Agency contended it had a claim for contractual indemnification, the subcontract between Mar Jea and the general contractor required written consent from the Agency, which was never obtained. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted Mar Jea's motion to dismiss, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSubcontractCondition PrecedentWorkers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment
References
2
Case No. 10-94-174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 1994

Agricultural Transportation Corporation v. Fortenberry Insurance Agency

Fortenberry Insurance Agency sued Agricultural Transportation, Inc. (ATI) for unpaid premiums on a specified-vehicle liability policy. The trial court found an oral contract existed where Fortenberry Insurance would obtain coverage and ATI would pay a reasonable premium, which ATI breached by failing to pay a $7,575.92 deficit, and awarded attorney's fees. ATI appealed, arguing legal and factual insufficiency of evidence for an oral contract or its breach. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of an agreement and breach based on the parties' conduct and custom, despite subjective disagreements on policy type.

Insurance Premium DisputeOral ContractBreach of ContractAttorney's Fees AwardSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate AffirmationContract InterpretationCustom and PracticeBusiness InsuranceLiability Policy
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. (LFF), an organic farm, initiated construction of three single-family dwellings for employees within a resource management area of the Adirondack Park without a permit. The Adirondack Park Agency (Agency) issued a cease and desist order and sought enforcement, arguing these were 'single family dwellings' requiring permits, not exempt 'agricultural use structures'. LFF challenged the Agency's jurisdiction and interpretation, asserting that dwellings associated with agricultural use should be considered 'agricultural use structures'. The court annulled the Agency's determination, concluding that single-family dwellings 'directly and customarily associated with agricultural use' can qualify as 'agricultural use structures' under the APA Act, thereby dismissing the Agency's enforcement action.

Adirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsResource Management AreasPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationSubdivision of LandFarm Worker HousingArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Determination
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Speer v. Presbyterian Children's Home & Service Agency

Georgette Speer and the Texas Commission on Human Rights (Commission) appealed a judgment favoring Presbyterian Children’s Home & Service Agency (PCHSA). Speer, who is Jewish, was denied a senior adoption worker position at PCHSA, which cited a policy of hiring only Christians. The plaintiffs alleged employment discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. The trial court found PCHSA to be a religious corporation, exempt under section 5.06(1) of the Act, and ruled in its favor. The appellate court affirmed this decision, agreeing that PCHSA qualified as a religious corporation and that the senior adoption worker role involved religious activities, making the discrimination lawful. Additionally, the court upheld the trial court's discretion in not awarding attorney's fees to PCHSA, concluding that the plaintiffs' claim was not frivolous.

Employment DiscriminationReligious ExemptionTexas Commission on Human Rights ActNonprofit OrganizationReligious CorporationFreedom of ReligionDiscrimination based on ReligionAppellate ReviewFactual InsufficiencyLegal Insufficiency
References
24
Case No. 13-11-00005-CV AND 13-11-00013-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2013

Brannan Paving Gp, LLC D/B/A Brannan Paving Company v. Pavement Markings, Inc., San Juan Insurance Agency, Inc. D/B/A Valley Insurance Providers and Leicht General Agency

This case involves an appeal from a breach of contract dispute between a contractor, Brannan Paving, and its subcontractor, Pavement Markings. Brannan Paving alleged Pavement Markings breached a subcontract by failing to obtain additional insured coverage. Pavement Markings joined its insurance agents, VIP and LGA, for negligence in procuring insurance. The appellate court found the trial court erred by including a waiver instruction in the jury question, as there was insufficient evidence of Brannan Paving's intent to waive. Consequently, the breach of contract claims were reversed and remanded. However, the take-nothing judgments on Brannan Paving's negligence claims against VIP and LGA were affirmed due to lack of privity, and Pavement Markings' cross-appeal for attorney's fees under the DTPA was denied due to the absence of actual damages.

Breach of ContractSubcontractor AgreementAdditional Insured CoverageWaiver InstructionJury Charge ErrorNegligence ClaimsInsurance Agent LiabilityPrivity of ContractDeceptive Trade Practices ActAttorney's Fees
References
60
Showing 1-10 of 5,199 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