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

Ziemian v. TX Arlington Oaks Apartments, Ltd.

The Texas Court of Appeals heard an appeal concerning a wrongful execution claim and sanctions. TX Arlington Oaks Apartments, Ltd. had successfully sued Joseph Brent Ziemian d/b/a Tarrant Restoration and its counsel Timothy G. Pletta for wrongful execution after a default judgment against TX Arlington was set aside in a bill of review proceeding. The trial court had granted summary judgment for TX Arlington, awarding $5,796.94 for wrongful execution, and imposed $10,294.13 in sanctions against Tarrant Restoration and Pletta. On appeal, the Court affirmed the summary judgment on the wrongful execution claim, confirming TX Arlington's right to recover the seized funds. However, the Court vacated the sanctions, finding some grounds for sanctions were not related to pleadings and that the defensive arguments, while potentially incorrect on finality, were not necessarily groundless or in bad faith given the complex, interrelated nature of the lawsuits and the ongoing appeals.

Wrongful ExecutionSanctionsRule 13Civil ProcedureSummary JudgmentAbuse of DiscretionPrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestBill of ReviewCollateral Estoppel
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renaissance Park v. Davila

Davila sued Renaissance Park and Renaissance Park Apartments alleging libel, slander, and negligence after a previous apartment complex, Chimney Hill, reported false rental history, preventing her from buying a house and renting an apartment. Davila sought to serve Renaissance via an on-premise manager under Texas Property Code § 92.003, resulting in a no-answer default judgment for $1,222,400. Renaissance filed a restricted appeal, arguing improper service. The appellate court agreed that Davila failed to strictly comply with § 92.003 by not pleading that she lacked written notice of the management company or owner, and by not alleging a landlord-tenant relationship ever existed between herself and Renaissance. Consequently, the court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case.

Default judgmentService of processLandlord-tenant lawProperty CodeRestricted appealStatutory constructionAppellate reviewLibelSlanderNegligence
References
25
Case No. 14-10-00555-CV; 14-10-00603-CV; 14-11-00033-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2013

Soon Phat, L.P., Individually and D/B/A Charleston Court Apartments, Yin Soon Choi, Mei Lian Choi and Dersing, Inc v. Juvenal Alvarado, Feliciano Alvarado and Araceili Alvarado and Robert Groce Dill

This case consolidates three appeals concerning a fight that erupted during a towing attempt at an apartment complex. Wrecker drivers Brock Keith Dion and Samuel Lee Thompson tried to tow Feliciano Alvarado's truck from Charleston Court Apartments, leading to a confrontation with Feliciano and his brother Juvenal. Juvenal was arrested, initially charged with felony aggravated assault, which was later reduced to a misdemeanor criminal mischief charge, and he accepted a plea bargain. The Alvarado brothers then filed a civil suit, asserting various tort claims against the individuals and entities involved, including the towing company and the apartment owners. The trial court's judgment is affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.

Personal InjuryAssaultFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionJoint EnterpriseVicarious LiabilityExemplary DamagesPunitive Damages
References
61
Case No. 03-00-00127-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2000

Renaissance Park and Renaissance Park Apartments v. Dora Davila

Dora Davila sued Renaissance Park and Renaissance Park Apartments for libel, slander, and negligence after a former landlord allegedly provided false rental history, preventing her from purchasing a house and renting another apartment. Davila obtained a no-answer default judgment against Renaissance for $1,222,400. Renaissance appealed, arguing improper service of process under Texas Property Code § 92.003 because Davila did not plead lack of written notice of a management company or owner, nor establish a landlord-tenant relationship with Renaissance. The appellate court found service improper as Davila failed to plead strict compliance with § 92.003 and did not allege a landlord-tenant relationship had ever existed with Renaissance. The court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

restricted appealdefault judgmentservice of processlandlord-tenant lawTexas Property Codestatutory interpretationappellate procedureimproper servicepersonal jurisdictionlibel
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2015

Austin Apartment Ass'n v. City of Austin

The Austin Apartment Association challenged the City of Austin's Ordinance 20141211-050, which bars landlords from discriminating based on source of income, including housing vouchers. The Association sought a preliminary injunction, arguing the ordinance was preempted by state and federal law, impaired contracts, and constituted a regulatory taking and due process violation. The Court denied the motion, finding the Association failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The judge concluded that the ordinance advanced legitimate government interests in providing affordable housing without violating constitutional rights.

Housing DiscriminationSource of IncomeHousing Choice Voucher ProgramPreliminary InjunctionPreemption DoctrineContract ClauseDue ProcessRegulatory TakingsFair Housing ActLocal Ordinance
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riegert Apartments Corp. v. Planning Board of Clarkstown

The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Clarkstown. The board required the petitioner to pay money in lieu of land as a condition for obtaining site plan approval to erect an apartment complex. Petitioner argued that the condition was arbitrary and illegal, contending that former owners had already conveyed land for flood control, which should satisfy the requirement. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments, finding that the previous land conveyance was for drainage and flood control, not for park or recreational purposes as required by Town Law § 277(1). The court also affirmed that the planning board had the authority under Town Law § 274-a to impose such a condition for site plan approvals. Consequently, the court denied the application in its entirety and dismissed the petition.

ZoningSite Plan ApprovalMoney in Lieu of LandTown LawCPLR Article 78Planning BoardLand UseRecreational LandFlood ControlRestrictive Covenants
References
2
Case No. E2014-00302-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2015

American Heritage Apartments, Inc. v. The Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority, Hamilton County, Tennessee

The plaintiff, American Heritage Apartments, Inc., challenged a monthly flat charge imposed by the Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority (County WWTA) for sewer lateral repairs. The trial court granted summary judgment to the County WWTA, finding no private right of action under the Utility District Law of 1937 (UDL). On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, concluding the UDL was inapplicable as the County WWTA was formed under the Tennessee Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act (WWTA Act). The appellate court held that the WWTA Act implicitly provides a private right of action for ultra vires and contract claims. The court also affirmed the trial court's alternative ruling that class action certification for affected customers was appropriate.

Water UtilityWastewater TreatmentFlat Rate ChargeClass Action CertificationSummary Judgment ReversalPrivate Right of ActionUltra Vires ClaimGovernmental ImmunityUtility District LawWater and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act
References
48
Case No. No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Clifton Park Apartments v. New York State Division of Human Rights

CityVision, a non-profit, filed a discrimination complaint against Pine Ridge Apartments with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR). After DHR dismissed the initial complaint, Pine Ridge's attorney sent a letter to CityVision and employee Leigh Renner threatening litigation for "false, fraudulent and libelous" allegations. In response, CityVision and Renner filed a retaliation complaint, which DHR upheld, finding the letter to be an adverse action. The Appellate Division annulled DHR's determination, concluding that the letter did not constitute adverse action and DHR improperly shifted the burden regarding protected activity. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that a threat of litigation can indeed constitute adverse action under the Human Rights Law, supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court remitted the matter to DHR for proper analysis of the "protected activity" element, as DHR had improperly shifted the burden of proof.

Retaliation claimHuman Rights LawAdverse actionThreat of litigationFamilial status discriminationBurden of proofProtected activityHousing discriminationAppellate reviewAdministrative law
References
18
Case No. 13-01-821-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2004

Advance'd Temporaries, Inc. v. Reliance Surety Company, Corpus Christi Crosswinds Apartments, Ltd., Cesar Gonzalez, Individually and D/B/A Gonzalez Construction

This is a mechanic's lien case from the Thirteenth District of Texas, Court of Appeals. Advance'd Temporaries, Inc., a temporary employment agency, appealed a trial court's decision that denied its standing to assert lien rights under Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code. Advance'd had provided temporary laborers to Gonzalez Construction for an apartment construction project but was left with a significant unpaid balance when Gonzalez defaulted. The appellate court reviewed whether Advance'd, by 'furnishing labor,' qualified for mechanic's lien protection. Reversing the trial court, the court held that Chapter 53 protects those who furnish labor in the direct prosecution of work, and Advance'd's involvement in recruiting, hiring, and insuring the workers established it as such. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Mechanic's LienTemporary Employment AgencyStandingTexas Property CodeFurnishing LaborSubcontractorPayment BondConstruction ProjectAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Case No. NO. 09-20-00292-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

OHAH, Ltd., D/B/A Oak Haven Apartment Homes v. LNG Builders, LLC, Odom Texas Development, LLC and the City of Shenandoah

Appellant OHAH, Ltd., d/b/a Oak Haven Apartment Homes (Oak Haven) appealed the trial court’s final judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees LNG Builders, LLC (LNG), Odom Texas Development, LLC (OTD), and the City of Shenandoah (the City). The dispute concerned an easement and drainage line built by the defendants on Oak Haven’s property. Oak Haven initially sued LNG and OTD for trespass, seeking injunctive relief and damages, alleging they had no right to construct a drainage line across its property. The City intervened, claiming an 80-foot utility easement (80’ U.E.) by dedication from a 2000 plat, which it claimed allowed LNG to build the drainage line. The trial court initially denied Oak Haven's temporary injunction, later granted Oak Haven's motion for partial summary judgment, but then vacated that order and granted summary judgments for LNG, OTD, and the City, and issued a take-nothing judgment against Oak Haven. The Court of Appeals found that the plat language referencing an "80’ U.E." was unclear as to whether it created a new easement for public use or merely marked a pre-existing easement for G.S.U. Even assuming an easement was dedicated, the Court concluded that LNG and OTD are not "public utilities" and their construction of a drainage line for OTD's private property drainage was inconsistent with the scope of a public utility easement, thus exceeding any purported grant. The Court also rejected OTD's and LNG's claims of derivative sovereign immunity, stating that a City permit does not immunize private contractors acting for a private property owner from tort liability. The Court determined the trial court erred in denying Oak Haven's motion for partial summary judgment and granting summary judgments for OTD and LNG on trespass and other claims, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant summary judgment for the City on non-suited claims. The appellate court vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Easement DisputeDrainage LineTrespassSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPublic UtilitiesSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationProperty RightsConstruction Law
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 585 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