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. 03-13-00790-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2015

T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

This case involves a tortious interference with inheritance lawsuit. Richard T. Archer and family (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) sued T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson (Appellants/Cross-Appellees), co-executors of Ted M. Anderson's estate. The Archers alleged that Ted Anderson tortiously interfered with their inheritance from John R. 'Jack' Archer by causing Jack, after a debilitating stroke that left him mentally incapacitated, to sign new estate planning documents that disinherited the Archers in favor of charities. The Archers incurred significant attorney's fees and settlement costs in prior litigation to reinstate Jack's original estate plan, which favored them. A jury found Ted Anderson liable for tortious interference and awarded damages, which the district court modified to include an additional settlement amount with charities. The appellees are now seeking to affirm the liability finding and modify the damage award on cross-appeal.

Tortious Interference with InheritanceEstate Planning DisputeMental IncapacityUndue InfluenceFiduciary Duty BreachGuardianship ProceedingWill ContestAttorney's Fees as DamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
78
Case No. 04-10-00802-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2012

Callaghan Ranch, Ltd (Appellant/Cross Appellee) v. David Killam (Appellee/Cross Appellant)

Callaghan Ranch, Ltd. appealed the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, challenging a jury's finding that a disputed portion of San Ygnacio Road was not impliedly dedicated to the public. The Ranch had sought a declaratory judgment to affirm the road's public status. Concurrently, the Killams, as appellees and cross-appellants, contested the trial court's refusal to award attorney's fees. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, concluding that Callaghan Ranch failed to conclusively prove implied dedication due to disputed evidence. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of attorney's fees, citing that both parties had legitimate interests to pursue.

Implied DedicationDeclaratory JudgmentJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictPublic RoadPrivate RoadAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceProperty RightsTexas Law
References
32
Case No. 03-16-00222-CV
Regular Panel Decision

LMV-AL Ventures, LLC// Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services and Commissioner Jon Weizenbaum, in His Official Capacity v. Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services and Commissioner Jon Weizenbaum, in His Official Capacity// Cross-Appellee, LMV-AL Ventures, LLC

This case is not as complicated as Appellees/Cross-Appellants’ Brief would suggest. On the merits, this case is about the meaning of "usable floor space" under 40 TAC § 92.62(m)(1)(B) and whether DADS ignored the plain meaning of those three words in calculating such space at Plaintiff's assisted living facility. It is also about the validity of DADS’ “secret rule,” unpublished and not promulgated pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, which DADS uses to justify omitting admittedly “usable” floor space. On jurisdictional issues, this case is also not as complicated as DADS’ Brief suggests. Contrary to DADS’ contentions, LMV is challenging both the applicability of Rule 92.62(m)(1)(B) and the validity and applicability of DADS’ “secret” measuring rule. “Applicability” under APA section 2001.038 and caselaw includes the application of the rule to the facts at hand. Further, the validity of DADS’ “secret” rule is challenged, because the rule was not promulgated pursuant to APA requirements and not published. Thus, there is subject matter jurisdiction under APA section 2001.038. LMV has standing to challenge DADS’ action because it imposes a regulatory burden and impedes LMV’s business opportunities. Under the APA section 2001.038 framework and relevant caselaw, LMV’s lawsuit is ripe and seeks more than an advisory opinion. In addition, there is subject matter jurisdiction for the ultra vires claims under the UDJA and subject matter jurisdiction for the constitutional due process claims (which DADS failed to brief). DADS’ plea to the jurisdiction and arguments in its brief are smoke and mirrors, designed to divert attention from DADS’ failure to (1) apply the indisputable plain language of its own rules and (2) follow APA requirements for promulgating otherwise “secret” and invalid rules.

Administrative lawAgency rulemakingUsable floor spaceAssisted living facilityRegulatory burdenBusiness opportunitiesSovereign immunityUltra viresDue processAPA
References
24
Case No. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. 04-11-00076-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2011

Dora Gulley (Appellant/Cross Appellee) v. State Farm Lloyds (Appellee/Cross Appellant)

Dora Gulley sued State Farm Lloyds for additional insurance benefits after foundation damage from a plumbing leak was covered under the Dwelling Foundation Endorsement, subject to a 15% limitation, while Gulley sought coverage under a Water Damage Endorsement. Both parties filed competing summary judgment motions, which the trial court denied without making a substantive ruling on which endorsement applied, but certified an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in declining to decide the substantive legal issue presented by the competing summary judgment motions. The court clarified that section 51.014(d) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code is not a mechanism for a certified question before a substantive ruling. Thus, the decision was reversed and remanded for the trial court to make a substantive ruling.

Insurance coverageHomeowners policyFoundation damagePlumbing leakEndorsement interpretationSummary judgmentInterlocutory appealAppellate procedureTrial court errorStatutory interpretation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. W. T. Carter & Bro.

The appellant, an employee, sued the appellees, a sawmill and lumber manufacturing partnership, for damages due to injuries sustained from a falling limb while clearing a right-of-way. The appellant alleged negligence by the appellees for not providing a safe place to work, insufficient employees, and failure to warn of hazards. The appellees denied the allegations. The trial court instructed a verdict for the appellees, which the appellant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no negligence on the part of the appellees, as the danger was created by the employees in the progress of the work, thus the safe-place doctrine did not apply.

NegligenceEmployer LiabilitySafe Place to Work DoctrineInstructed VerdictAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawOccupational InjurySawmill IndustryTexas JurisprudenceProximate Cause
References
7
Case No. 12-19-00032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2019

City of Dallas, a Self-Insured Employer, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Gregory D. Thompson, Appellee/Cross-Appellant

This is an interlocutory appeal from a trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction in a suit for judicial review of a Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) decision. The City of Dallas, a self-insured employer, challenged counterclaims filed by Gregory D. Thompson, a former employee who claimed workers’ compensation benefits. Dallas asserted the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Thompson’s counterclaims due to untimely filing. Thompson cross-appealed the dismissal of his counterclaim for attorney’s fees based on governmental immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the forty-five-day deadline for judicial review is not jurisdictional and upholding governmental immunity for the City of Dallas regarding attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsJudicial Review of Administrative DecisionsPlea to JurisdictionTimeliness of FilingsGovernmental Immunity DoctrineAttorney's Fees ClaimInterlocutory Appeal TexasLabor Code ViolationsSelf-Insured EntitiesAppellate Court Rulings
References
11
Case No. 04-12-00702-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2013

John Homer Coonly (Appellant/Cross-Appellee) v. Gables Residential Services, Inc., D/B/A Gables West Avenue (Appellee/Cross-Appellant)

John Homer Coonly appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Gables Residential Services, Inc., which resulted in Coonly taking nothing on his claims for negligence, premises liability, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). Coonly's claims stemmed from the theft and vandalism of his motorcycles from the apartment parking garage owned by Gables. Gables filed a cross-appeal regarding the denial of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on negligence and premises liability claims, finding the lease agreements validly waived such claims. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Coonly's DTPA claim, concluding that the waiver language in the agreements did not meet the DTPA's statutory requirements and Coonly's affidavit raised a material issue of fact regarding Gables' representations about the access gate.

NegligencePremises LiabilityDeceptive Trade Practices ActDTPASummary JudgmentLease AgreementExculpatory ClauseWaiver of LiabilityAttorney's FeesContract Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simpson v. State

Appellant Hazel Simpson sued appellees for common-law damages after being sexually assaulted during her employment, despite having received workers’ compensation benefits. Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing her claim was barred by section 408.001 of the Texas Labor Code, which designates workers’ compensation as the exclusive remedy. Simpson contended her suit fell under an exception for intentional torts, asserting appellees' omissions were substantially certain to cause injury. The court, citing Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin, clarified that an intentional failure to provide a safe workplace only constitutes an intentional injury if the employer believed their conduct was substantially certain to cause the injury. The court found Simpson's allegations did not constitute intentional conduct under the 'substantial certainty' test, deeming them negligence. Consequently, Simpson’s claims, and her son’s derivative loss of consortium claim, were barred. The trial court's grant of summary judgment for appellees was affirmed.

Sexual AssaultWorkers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DoctrineIntentional Tort ExceptionEmployer NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor CodeLoss of Parental ConsortiumSubstantial Certainty TestWorkplace Safety
References
9
Case No. 01-14-00417-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2015

Nick Yeh, Individually, Ashdon Inc. D/B/A Impression Bridal, and Emme Bridal, Inc. v. Ellen Chesloff

Ellen Chesloff, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, is defending a jury verdict in her favor on sexual harassment claims against Appellants/Cross-Appellees Nick Yeh, Ashdon Inc. D/B/A Impression Bridal, and Emme Bridal, Inc. The Appellants challenged the trial court's jurisdiction, arguing Chesloff's discrimination charge was untimely, which Chesloff contests by asserting relation-back principles. Additionally, Chesloff cross-appeals the trial court's decision to exclude evidence of her back pay and drastically reduce her awarded attorney's fees. She seeks to recover $24,000 in back pay and over $300,000 in attorney's fees. This brief argues for the affirmation of the sexual harassment judgment and reversal of the back pay and attorney's fees rulings, requesting a judgment for the full amounts or a remand.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationAppellate LawBack PayAttorney FeesJurisdiction ChallengeTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTCHRAEEOC FilingCross-Appeal
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 2,963 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