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. 03-22-00254-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2022

Kirsten Hanna, Upside Up Properties, LLC, and Upside Up Ventures, Inc. v. M. Matthew Williams David Howell Law Firm of M. Matthew Williams Leighton, Williams, Adkinson, & Brown, PLLC And Leighton, Michaux, Adkinson, & Brown, PLLC

Kirsten Hanna and two LLCs appealed from a Travis County district court's orders dismissing their professional-negligence claims against their former attorneys, M. Matthew Williams, David Howell, and their associated law firms, under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The appellants also challenged the denial of their application for attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Hanna's claims and the denial of her attorney's fees request. However, the court reversed the award of attorney's fees to the Williams Parties, finding the evidence of reasonableness and necessity to be legally insufficient, and remanded that specific issue for redetermination.

Professional NegligenceLegal MalpracticeTexas Citizens Participation ActTCPAAttorney's FeesCommercial Speech ExemptionDTPA ExemptionAnti-Fracturing RuleSummary JudgmentJudicial Estoppel
References
56
Case No. 05-14-01265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2015

Azeb Ruder v. William Jordan D/B/A William Davis Realty, William Davis Real Estate Services, LLC

Azeb Ruder appealed the denial of her motion to dismiss defamation claims filed by William Jordan d/b/a William Davis Realty, William Davis Real Estate Services, LLC d/b/a William Davis Realty, and Kathy Jabri. Ruder's motion was filed under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA) after she posted a negative review of Kathy Jabri's real estate services on Zillow. Appellees claimed Ruder's statements were defamatory, specifically regarding the property being 'Temp Off Market' for over 100 days against her wish, other realtors' opinions, and questioning Jabri's competence. The appellate court found Ruder met her burden under TCPA. However, appellees failed to establish a prima facie case for defamation because the alleged false statements were either substantially true (regarding the duration of the 'Temp Off Market' status) or non-actionable statements of opinion (regarding competence or mental state). The court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the defamation claims, remanding for determination of costs and attorney's fees.

DefamationTexas Citizens' Participation ActTCPAFree SpeechReal Estate LawMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedurePrima Facie CaseSubstantial Truth DoctrineStatement of Opinion
References
22
Case No. 2021-08-0034
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Williams, Linda (by Lawrence Williams, surviving spouse) v. Methodist Lebonheur Healthcare

This death claim involves Lawrence Williams, surviving spouse of Linda Williams, who contracted COVID-19 while employed by Methodist Lebonheur Healthcare. The primary dispute centered on the calculation of the maximum total death benefit. Methodist argued for a benefit capped at $184,918.50, based on Ms. Williams's weekly compensation rate. However, the Court, drawing on the precedent of Reynolds v. Free Serv. Tire Co. and interpretations of Tennessee Code Annotated, determined that the correct maximum total benefit was $447,300.00, calculated as 450 weeks times the state's average weekly wage. The Court found the reasoning in Reynolds persuasive, despite Methodist's objections regarding its citation status. Consequently, the Court ordered Methodist to pay Mr. Williams the higher death benefits.

Death ClaimWorkers' CompensationCOVID-19Surviving SpouseMaximum Total BenefitAverage Weekly WageStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawBenefit CalculationCase Precedent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Forbes

Joseph Patrick Williams was injured in a 1984 fall at the Armbrusters' property where William Forbes was a general contractor. Williams, who received workers' compensation benefits, sued Forbes and the Armbrusters. Forbes, having impleaded Williams's employers David Rowe and D. Rowe Home Improvements, sought to amend his answer to include a Workers' Compensation Law defense and moved for summary judgment, which the court denied, although it granted the Armbrusters' cross-motion for summary judgment. Forbes appealed the denial of his summary judgment motion. Williams subsequently moved to dismiss Forbes's appeal as untimely. The court denied Williams's motion, ruling that the 30-day appeal period under CPLR 5513(a) only begins when the appellant is served notice of entry by the prevailing party, not by co-defendants like the Armbrusters. Consequently, Forbes's appeal was deemed timely.

AppealTimeliness of AppealService of NoticeCPLR 5513Workers' Compensation DefenseSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissNassau CountyAppellate DivisionPrevailing Party
References
8
Case No. 11-06-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2008

Stephanie Williams A/K/A Stephanie Scholler and Tim Williams v. William Colthurst, Yuko Colthurst, WGW Properties, Inc. D/B/A Century 21 Advantage, Tom DeWitt, Century 21 Real Estate Corporation, and Felix Kauffman

This appeal stems from a landlord-tenant dispute. The landlords (Colthurst) initially sued the tenants (Williams) for unpaid rent and property damage. The tenants counterclaimed, alleging wrongful withholding of their security deposit and a premises liability claim after Mrs. Williams was sexually assaulted in the leased home. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the landlords on the unpaid rent claim and a directed verdict on the premises liability claim, with the jury ruling in favor of the landlords on the remaining issues. On appeal, the tenants challenged multiple aspects of the trial court's judgment, including the summary judgment, the directed verdict, and the jury's findings regarding the security deposit and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the handling of the various claims and upholding sanctions against the tenants' counsel for an intrinsic fraud allegation.

Landlord-Tenant DisputeUnpaid RentProperty DamageSecurity DepositPremises LiabilitySexual AssaultDirected VerdictSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
37
Case No. ADJ7981413; ADJ2876358
Regular
Jun 03, 2025

LORI WILLIAMS vs. WEBCOR BUILDERS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

Applicant Lori Williams filed a petition to disqualify WCJ Elizabeth Dehn, alleging bias due to inexperience, ignored medical treatment requests, and lack of penalties. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered the petition and the WCJ's report. The WCAB, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition, citing that the petition lacked detailed facts under penalty of perjury as required by WCAB Rule 10960 and failed to establish grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and (g). The WCJ stated that no rulings were made on medical treatment or penalties during the status conference, and denied any bias.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ DisqualificationLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641BiasEnmityUnqualified OpinionAffidavitsDeclaration Under Penalty of PerjuryVerified Allegations
References
8
Case No. 2-08-033-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2008

Jerry W. Williams, Jr. v. Danielle Marie Williams

Appellant Jerry W. Williams, Jr. appeals from a divorce decree dissolving his marriage to Appellee Danielle Marie Williams. Jerry argued that the trial court erred by mischaracterizing property, incorrectly valuing the marital estates, and improperly dividing the community estate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that Danielle had a $101,097.24 separate property interest in the ranch property, based on gifts from her mother and stepfather. The court also addressed Jerry's claims regarding the mischaracterization of a horse (Pflamenco) and other separate property items, finding no reversible error due to lack of evidence on value or possession. Ultimately, the appellate court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the community estate and affirmed its judgment.

DivorceProperty DivisionCommunity PropertySeparate PropertyGiftMischaracterizationValuationAbuse of DiscretionRanch PropertyEquine
References
33
Case No. 01-03-00924-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2005

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. v. L.M.S.C., Inc., D/B/A the Dental Solution

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. appealed a judgment in favor of L.M.S.C., Inc., d/b/a The Dental Solution (TDS), stemming from a breach of contract dispute. TDS, a dental placement service, sued the Williams for an unpaid permanent placement fee after Diana Flanagan, whom TDS had previously placed temporarily as a dental hygienist, was hired by the Williams as a full-time dentist. The appellants challenged the jury's findings, arguing the contract did not cover dentists, lacked new consideration for modifications, and missed essential terms. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the placement agreement, as modified by subsequent fee schedules, applied to the placement of dentists and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the Williamses breached the contract by failing to pay the permanent placement fee. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees.

Breach of ContractPlacement AgreementDental IndustryPermanent Placement FeeContract ModificationConsiderationMeeting of the MindsLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Preferred Development Corporation

Mrs. Margaret Y. Williams sued Preferred Development Corporation for benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Law following the accidental death of her husband, Fletcher E. Williams, Sr. Mr. Williams, an employee of Preferred Development Corporation, was killed on June 9, 1967, by a shot from a .22 calibre magnum gun fired by a fellow employee, Holtsclaw, at the project's office building where employees were provided living quarters. The Circuit Judge found the shooting to be accidental, and the central legal question was whether the death arose "out of and in the course of employment," making it compensable. The Court referenced several precedents to establish that an injury is compensable if it occurs while the employee is performing duties and is caused by a hazard incident to employment. Concluding that the deceased was at his required place and time of employment and his death arose from employment, the Court affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment in favor of the applicant.

Workers' CompensationAccidental DeathCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentFellow Worker InjuryEmployer Provided HousingCompensabilityOccupational HazardWork-Related InjuryAccidental Shooting
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 14,969 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