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. NO. 12-12-00053-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2013

Deutsche Bank Trust Company, N.A. v. Jason Anders and Leslie Anders

Deutsche Bank Trust Company, N.A. appealed the trial court's denial of its motion for a new trial after a default judgment was granted in favor of Jason and Lesli Anders. The Bank argued its failure to file a timely answer was due to a calendaring mistake by its agent, AHMSI's vice president Nathan Boucher, who confused the case entry date with the service date, thus negating conscious indifference under the Craddock test. The appellate court agreed, finding that Boucher's detailed testimony and the established system for managing lawsuits demonstrated a mistake rather than intentional or consciously indifferent conduct. Consequently, the court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by not setting aside the default judgment. The judgment was reversed, and the case, including the issue of attorney's fees, was remanded for a new trial, with appellees to be reimbursed only for expenses incurred due to the default.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceCalendaring ErrorAttorney's FeesAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewService of ProcessReversal and Remand
References
18
Case No. 01-14-00515-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

Kosoco, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County

The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) filed this supplemental brief in response to Kosoco, Inc.'s reply brief. METRO argues that Kosoco's contention regarding material and substantial impairment of access during construction was waived, as it was not raised in their initial brief and lacked sufficient legal or evidentiary support. METRO asserts that any inconveniences during construction were normal and did not constitute a material and substantial impairment of access, nor is a decrease in business profitability relevant to a takings claim. The brief cites several Texas cases and rules of appellate procedure to support its arguments. METRO requests that the Court of Appeals affirm the trial court's order dismissing Kosoco's takings claim.

Appellate BriefWaiver of ArgumentTakings ClaimImpairment of AccessConstruction ImpactsEvidentiary SupportLegal PrecedentSummary JudgmentTrial Court OrderAffirmation
References
16
Case No. 03-14-00738-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2015

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC// Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.

The Appellees and Cross-Appellants, RLJII-C Austin Air, LP; RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP; and RJL Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC, filed an unopposed motion to amend their Appellees' Brief. The amendment seeks to correct a sentence fragment on page 5 of their brief by adding ten omitted words. The omission occurred due to an error during the final preparation of the brief, where a phrase was accidentally deleted during a copy-and-paste operation and was not detected until after the brief was filed. Counsel for the Appellant and Cross-Appellee is not opposed to the requested amendment. The motion requests that the court grant leave to amend and accept the Amended Appellees' Brief for filing.

Motion to Amend BriefSentence Fragment CorrectionAppellate ProcedureUnopposed MotionBrief AmendmentCivil ProcedureContract LawAttorney's FeesStanding to SueAssignment of Contract
References
168
Case No. 01-17-00626-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Helwig Van Der Grinten, James W. Dalton and Anis Hussain v. City of Sugarland, Joe R. Zimmerman, Doug Brinkley and Allen Bogard

The appellants, Helwig Van Der Grinten, James W. Dalton, and Anis Hussain, filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a Supplemental Reply Appeal Brief in the First Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas. They seek permission to respond to a Supplemental Appeal Brief filed by the appellees, City of Sugar Land, Joe R. Zimmerman, Doug Brinkley, and Allen Bogard. The appellants argue that they are entitled to the last brief and that filing the supplemental brief would not interfere with the appeal's progress. They also state that the supplemental brief addresses a serious issue of subject matter jurisdiction concerning Article V, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution. Counsel for the appellees, George A. Staples, confirmed that the appellees do not oppose this motion.

Appellate ProcedureMotion PracticeSupplemental BriefSubject Matter JurisdictionTexas ConstitutionArticle V Section 19Red Light Camera LawsExhaustion of RemediesSeparation of PowersUltra Vires Claim
References
12
Case No. 14-0530
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2015

Bnsf Railway Company v. James E. Phillips

This Reply Brief on the Merits by BNSF Railway Company contests the appellate court's judgment affirming a jury's findings in a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) case involving James E. Phillips. BNSF argues that Phillips failed to provide legally sufficient and reliable expert testimony to establish causation for his spinal injuries, particularly concerning epidemiological studies. The brief also asserts that Phillips's FELA claim was untimely, as evidence indicated his awareness of the injury and its work-related cause before the statutory deadline. Additionally, BNSF challenges the finding of liability under the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) based on general complaints and argues for the erroneous exclusion of contributory negligence and certain rebuttal evidence. BNSF requests the Supreme Court of Texas to reverse the appellate court's judgment and render judgment in its favor or remand for a new trial.

FELACausationExpert TestimonyEpidemiological EvidenceTimelinessStatute of LimitationsLocomotive Inspection Act (LIA)Contributory NegligenceEvidentiary RulingsAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. 04-15-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2015

Brian McEnery v. City of San Antonio and Chief Charles N. Hood

Brian McEnery, an Appellant, files a reply brief challenging a lower court's decision regarding an arbitrator's award in a dispute with the City of San Antonio and Chief Charles N. Hood. The brief addresses several key issues, including whether McEnery waived certain arguments on appeal, the alleged absence of feedback in a firefighter assessment center examination, and the application of Texas Local Government Codes regarding promotion procedures. McEnery also disputes the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel, argues that his failure in a tactical exercise should not be upheld, and asserts that the arbitrator's decision was deficient. Additionally, the Appellant contends that his appeal is not moot and that his notice of appeal was timely filed.

ArbitrationAssessment CenterPromotional ExamCollective Bargaining AgreementLocal Government LawCivil ServiceRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelMootnessAppellate Jurisdiction
References
12
Case No. 14-15-00227-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2015

James P. Grantham v. J&B Sausage Company, Inc., D/B/A J Bar B Foods

James P. Grantham, the Appellant, filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File its Reply Brief in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas. The original brief was due on June 7, 2015, and Grantham requested an additional fifteen days, extending the deadline to June 22, 2015. The appellant cited a scheduled administrative benefit review conference before the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation, and an unavoidable conflict as reasons for the extension. The court document indicates the filing was accepted.

Workers' CompensationMotionExtension of TimeReply BriefAppellate ProcedureTexasHoustonLitigationCivil ProcedureDue Date
References
0
Case No. 1099
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Stature Electric, Inc.

The court ruled on a motion to strike the supplemental appendix and specific sections of the brief submitted by respondent David W. Howard. The motion was granted to the extent that the material in the brief referencing the supplemental appendix is deemed stricken. However, the motion to strike was otherwise denied.

Motion to strikeSupplemental appendixBriefCourt procedureProcedural ruling
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estrellita A. v. Jennifer L.D.

A motion filed by the National Association of Social Workers and others, seeking permission to submit an amici curiae brief in the ongoing appeals, has been granted. The proposed brief has been accepted for filing by the court. It was noted that Judge Fahey did not participate in the deliberation or decision regarding this motion.

Amici CuriaeMotion GrantedAppealsBrief FilingJudicial Non-ParticipationLeave to FileAppellate Procedure
References
0
Case No. ADJ8180232
Regular
Sep 13, 2017

HUBERT OLIVER vs. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, ACE/ESIS, INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, HOUSTON OILERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for HOME INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a judge's finding of no California jurisdiction over a professional football player's injury claim. The Board will consider whether the applicant was hired in California and if playing two games here creates sufficient connection for jurisdiction under the *Johnson* decision. The applicant will be allowed to file a supplemental brief referencing trial transcripts, and all parties will have an opportunity to brief the Board's intention to rule on the sufficiency of California's interest in adjudicating the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia jurisdictionindustrial injuryprofessional football playeremployment contractssubject matter jurisdictionsupplemental briefingcumulative traumaFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)due process
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 391 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