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. 14-00-00391-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2002

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's NCS Inc Angela M. Smith, Individually and as Next Friend of Brandon William Hendrix a Minor v. Smith, Angela M. , Individually and as Next Friend of Brandon William Hendrix a Minor

This case involves an order from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals to withdraw previously issued opinions. The initial appeals, filed by Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, and National Convenience Stores, Inc., against Angela M. Smith, were dismissed following a settlement involving a minor and subsequent approval by the trial court. While the court initially vacated its judgment but not the opinions, Angela M. Smith filed a motion for rehearing, which was granted, leading to the withdrawal of the Majority, Concurring, and Dissenting Opinions issued on April 25, 2002. Chief Justice Brister issued a dissenting opinion on this withdrawal, arguing against the narrow interpretation of 'insurable interest' in the context of employer-employee life insurance policies, particularly in light of modern business practices and legislative changes to the Texas Insurance Code. He highlighted concerns about the impact of a previous ruling (Tamez) on potential mass tort litigation and emphasized the need for a liberal construction of insurable interest to reflect current public policy and protect employers from uninsured losses.

Insurable InterestEmployer LiabilityWorkers' CompensationSettlementAppellate ProcedureCase WithdrawalDissenting OpinionTexas Insurance LawCommon Law InterpretationMass Tort Litigation
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Smith

This case involves an appeal concerning child support arrearages following a divorce between Evelyn Smith (plaintiff) and Clarence Smith (defendant). The trial court initially increased child support but dismissed the arrearage claim. The Court of Appeals, after a rehearing, reversed and awarded a judgment for the arrearage, citing the defendant's failure to file a written denial. The Supreme Court, however, found that the trial judge had accepted the defendant's oral answer and that the plaintiff had waived the objection to the lack of a written answer by not raising it at trial. Acknowledging the equitable nature of the dispute, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for a new trial on the child support arrearage issue, requiring both parties to amend their pleadings.

Child Support ArrearageDivorce LawProcedural LawAppellate ProcedureWaiver of DefensesOral AnswerNew TrialEquitable ProceedingsContempt of CourtRemand for Merits
References
6
Case No. 03-09-00518-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2011

Black + Vernooy Architects, J. Sinclair Black, and D. Andrew Vernooy v. Lou Ann Smith Jimmy Jackson Smith, Individually and as Next Friend of Rachel and Grayson Smith And Karen E. Graveley

Appellees Lou Ann Smith and Karen E. Gravely sustained severe injuries, including paraplegia for Lou Ann, when a balcony designed by Black + Vernooy Architects (Appellants) collapsed due to construction defects. The Smiths sued the Architects for negligence, and a jury found them partially responsible. On appeal, the Court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the Architects owed no contractual or common law duty to the Smiths as third-party visitors to the home. The Court emphasized that the Architects' contract with the homeowners, the Maxfields, explicitly disavowed third-party beneficiaries and limited the Architects' oversight role without granting control over construction methods. The Court declined to create a new common law duty for architects under these circumstances, citing the significant burden and the availability of recourse against the general contractor and subcontractor.

NegligenceArchitect LiabilityContractual DutyCommon Law DutyThird-Party BeneficiaryBalcony CollapseConstruction DefectsProportional ResponsibilityTexas Court of AppealsDuty of Care
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris County v. Smith

The Smiths were injured in a 1994 automobile collision with Deputy Sheriff Spurgeon. A jury found Spurgeon's negligence caused the injuries and awarded the Smiths $95,100 in damages. Harris County appealed, challenging the inclusion of 'loss of earning capacity' for Lynn Smith and 'physical impairment' for Erica Smith in the broad-form damages question, arguing insufficient evidence. The appellate court agreed that the trial court erred in submitting these specific elements due to lack of evidence. However, it concluded that traditional harm analysis, rather than the 'presumed harm' standard from Crown Life Insurance Co. v. Casteel, applied to erroneously submitted elements of a broad-form damages question. Applying traditional harm analysis, the court found sufficient evidence to support the overall damages awarded to Lynn Smith for medical care, physical pain, and mental anguish, and to Erica Smith for medical care, physical pain, and mental anguish, rendering the errors in submitting the unsupported elements non-reversible. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

NegligenceDamagesJury VerdictBroad-form QuestionsHarm AnalysisPhysical ImpairmentLoss of Earning CapacityMedical CareCausationPre-existing Condition
References
31
Case No. 12-08-00159-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2009

City of Tyler and Texas Department of Transportation v. Valerie Smith and Robert Smith

Valerie and Robert Smith filed a declaratory judgment action against the City of Tyler and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to determine the existence of a drainage easement on their property after a sinkhole appeared. The trial court denied the defendants' pleas to the jurisdiction and the City's motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Twelfth Court of Appeals District considered whether governmental and sovereign immunity barred the Smiths' claims. The appellate court found that the Smiths' claims, despite being framed as declaratory judgments, aimed to impose monetary liability or control the actions of the governmental entities. The court concluded that these claims were barred by governmental and sovereign immunity, thereby depriving the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the Smiths' action with prejudice.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentPlea to the JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionDrainage EasementProprietary FunctionsGovernmental FunctionsTexas LawMunicipal Immunity
References
23
Case No. 13-02-090-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

Cheryl Ann Smith v. Gary Smith

Cheryl Smith, the appellant, appeals the trial court's award of spousal maintenance to Gary Smith, the appellee, in their divorce proceedings. The appellant challenges several findings of the trial court, including that the appellee lacks sufficient property, is unable to support himself due to an incapacitating physical disability, and that there is a causal link between his disability and his inability to secure appropriate employment. The background reveals that Gary suffered a cerebral aneurism in 1974, which resulted in a physical disability affecting his fine motor movements and causing severe headaches, preventing him from working. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard, examining the evidence supporting the findings regarding Gary's disability, his inability to work, and his minimum reasonable needs. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of spousal maintenance.

DivorceSpousal MaintenancePhysical DisabilityIncapacitating DisabilityEarning AbilityAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewFamily LawTexasCommunity Property
References
13
Case No. 14-22-00433-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2023

Bill Wyly Development, Inc. and William Wyly v. Eron Smith and Hanna Smith

This case involves an appeal by Bill Wyly Development, Inc. and William Wyly against Eron and Hanna Smith. The Smiths had initially sued Wyly for trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress after declining to hire Wyly Development to build their home, leading to verbal threats and property damage. The trial court awarded the Smiths $32,500 in damages. On appeal, the court reversed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, concluding that Wyly's conduct was not sufficiently extreme and outrageous. However, the court affirmed the jury's award of $11,500 for trespass damages, finding the evidence factually sufficient. The motion for rehearing was denied.

Emotional DistressTrespass LawAppellate ProcedureDirected VerdictFactual SufficiencyContract DisputeProperty DamageVerbal ThreatsJury VerdictRehearing Denied
References
35
Case No. 01-08-00641-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2009

Union Carbide & Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc.'s v. Oliver D. Smith and Peggy Ann Bowen Smith

Oliver D. Smith and Peggy Ann Bowen Smith sued Union Carbide Corporation and Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. for Oliver's mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. A jury found Union Carbide and Hexion negligent. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the trial court's judgment. The court found insufficient evidence that Union Carbide controlled the details of Oliver's work, which is required to establish premises owner liability under Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Additionally, the court held that the Smiths' claims against Hexion, as successor-in-interest to Smith-Douglas, were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, declining to apply the 'dual-persona' doctrine.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaPremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyCorporate MergerSuccessor LiabilityDual-Persona DoctrineLegal Sufficiency
References
19
Case No. 07-15-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2014

Mark P. Hardwick, Individually and D/B/A Mark P. Hardwick Oil and Gas Properties and Mark P. Hardwick, LLC v. Smith Energy Company, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Smith Energy Resource Oil, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and on Behalf of Smith Energy Partners I, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership

This is an appeal from a civil dispute over oil and gas projects in West Texas. The original lawsuit was filed by Smith Energy Company against landman Mark Hardwick and his LLC, alleging breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, and theft. The jury initially awarded Smith $104,000 in damages. However, the trial court significantly increased the recovery to over $5 million in forfeiture and $3.5 million in attorney's fees, in addition to ordering partial rescission of several contracts. Hardwick appeals, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the various claims and the excessiveness of the remedies, arguing that the contracts explicitly disavowed fiduciary duties and that the forfeiture was a baseless land grab. The appellate brief details arguments for reversing the contract, theft, and tort theories, as well as the additional remedies imposed by the trial court.

Oil and Gas DisputeContract BreachFraud ClaimsFiduciary DutyStatutory TheftWorking InterestsOverriding Royalty InterestsLandman ServicesAttorney's Fees DisputeEquitable Remedies
References
83
Case No. 14-00-00391-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2002

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S v. Smith

This case concerns an appeal that was initially abated due to a settlement involving a minor, Brandon William Hendrix, and subsequently dismissed after trial court approval. The Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas, Houston, had previously issued opinions on April 25, 2002, which it later voted to withdraw after a motion for rehearing by Angela M. Smith. Chief Justice Scott Brister dissented from the withdrawal, arguing that the underlying legal issue of an employer's insurable interest in its employees, particularly in the context of non-subscribing employers and potential pecuniary losses, is of significant public interest. He criticized the precedent set by Tamez v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, which he believes narrowly defines insurable interests and could lead to mass torts, advocating for a liberal construction of Texas insurance law to reflect modern employer liabilities.

Appellate ProcedureSettlement AgreementMinor SettlementOpinion WithdrawalDissenting OpinionInsurable InterestEmployer LiabilityTexas Insurance LawPecuniary InterestPublic Policy
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 713 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