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. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. 02-09-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2011

Metro A, LLC, Sun Holdings, LLC, POP Restaurants, LLC, Golden Restaurants, Inc., Firebrand Properties, LP, Corral Group, LP, Kansas Corral, LLC, Sunny Corral Management, LLC, Guillermo Perales, Frys Management, LLC v. Jessica Polley

This is an appeal from a default judgment against Appellants (Metro A, LLC, Sun Holdings, LLC, and others) and in favor of Appellee Jessica Polley. Polley had previously sued Metro Restaurants, LLC for sexual assault by an employee. In a later lawsuit, Polley sued the Appellants, alleging they were jointly and severally liable for Metro Restaurants' negligence and engaged in fraudulent transfers to prevent her from collecting a 2007 judgment against Metro Restaurants. Appellants appeal the default judgment on several grounds, including improper service, insufficient pleading, lack of evidence, and lack of notice for the default proceeding. They also challenge the denial of their motion for new trial, citing a calendaring mistake and a belief that a bankruptcy stay applied. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Appellants judicially admitted proper service, Polley's pleading was sufficient, and Appellants' excuses for not filing an answer were not credible.

Default judgmentAppealService of processMeritorious defenseCraddock factorsJudicial admissionNegligenceJoint and several liabilityBankruptcy stayCalendaring error
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2007

Hai Ming Lu v. Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc.

Plaintiffs, members of the wait staff at Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc., filed an action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) concerning minimum wage, overtime, gratuity retention, uniform reimbursement, and retaliation, alongside a breach of contract claim. The defendants, Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc. and six associated individuals, moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment, dismissing claims related to retaliation, uniform cleaning costs, breach of contract, and the argument that retaining banquet service charges violated NYLL § 196-d, citing New York appellate precedents. However, the motion was denied for claims alleging the illegal use of the gratuity pool to pay restaurant expenses, improper tip credit usage under federal and state law, and management interference in tip distribution. The Court found that genuine issues of material fact remained for trial on these latter points.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Minimum WageOvertime ViolationsGratuitiesTip PoolingService ChargesUniform ReimbursementRetaliationSummary Judgment
References
14
Case No. 13-12-00619-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2012

in Re Daniel E. Arnold

Daniel E. Arnold filed a petition for writ of mandamus to quash the deposition of his accountant, Jim Spence, and to avoid the discovery of federal income tax returns and net worth. This case stems from a negligence and premises liability lawsuit filed by Gerardo Gonzalez, an injured employee of AW Produce, Inc., against Arnold and other entities. Gonzalez sought discovery of Arnold's financial information to establish ownership and control of the premises where the injury occurred, as well as for exemplary damages. The Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief in part, directing the trial court to withdraw its order requiring production of Arnold Realty's federal income tax returns and Arnold's historical net worth information. All other requested relief was denied.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeAccountant-Client PrivilegeFederal Income Tax ReturnsNet Worth DiscoveryPremises LiabilityNegligenceGross NegligenceRespondeat SuperiorCorporate Veil Piercing
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arnold v. INA of Texas

Olene Arnold appealed an adverse summary judgment granted in favor of INA of Texas regarding workers' compensation benefits. Arnold had an initial shoulder injury in July 1982, settled a claim with Travelers Insurance, and then experienced renewed problems in July 1983, filing a new claim against INA. INA denied coverage, asserting the new condition stemmed from the first injury. The Industrial Accident Board upheld Arnold's claim, but the trial court granted summary judgment for INA based on Dr. Snoots' deposition testimony. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, noting the appellant's burden to show error and the incomplete record before them.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentAppealMedical TestimonyPrior InjuryCausationInsurance CoverageTexas LawAffirmationBurden of Proof
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arnold v. Reliant Bank

The plaintiff, Julie A. Arnold, a former mortgage loan originator at Reliant Bank, filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, along with a claim for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA. Arnold claimed she was discriminated against through withheld commissions, failure to assign business, exclusion from meetings, and termination, in addition to a hostile work environment. She also argued she was improperly classified as an exempt outside sales employee and denied overtime. The court denied Reliant Bank's motion for summary judgment on the gender discrimination claims due to direct evidence of discriminatory intent, but granted summary judgment to Reliant on the hostile work environment claim. Both parties' motions for summary judgment regarding the FLSA outside sales exemption were denied, citing genuine disputes of material fact about the extent of Arnold's off-site sales activities.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentFLSAOvertime WagesOutside Sales ExemptionMortgage Loan OriginatorDirect EvidencePrimary Duty Test
References
26
Case No. 05-12-00893-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2014

Texas Mutual Insurance Company & Gloria Williams v. Palmer, Jeff

Jeff Palmer, an employee of Barsh Company, suffered a back injury, leading to a workers’ compensation claim with Texas Mutual Insurance Company (TMIC), adjusted by Gloria Williams. A dispute arose regarding the extent of his injury, causing delays in a pre-authorized surgery. Palmer sued TMIC and Williams for bad faith, alleging violations of common law, the insurance code, and the DTPA. The trial court submitted insurance code claims to the jury despite objections from TMIC, leading to a verdict for Palmer. The Court of Appeals reversed this judgment, ruling that the insurance code claims were not properly pleaded or tried by consent, thus nullifying the damages awarded to Palmer.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceInsurance Bad FaithTexas Insurance Code Section 541.061Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Jury Charge ErrorPleadings RequirementTrial by ConsentAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReversalDamages Voided
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palmer v. Miller Brewing Co.

Truman Palmer, an employee of Miller Brewing Company, was discharged under a "Final Notice Procedure" due to a high absence rate. Palmer sued Miller, alleging retaliatory discharge, claiming his absences were related to a job-related back injury and subsequent worker's compensation claim. He also claimed breach of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of Miller on the good faith claim and a take-nothing judgment on the retaliatory discharge, concluding Palmer was terminated solely for excessive absences, unrelated to his worker's compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed both rulings, holding that an absence control policy that does not excuse compensation-related absences does not inherently violate the retaliatory discharge statute (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c) and that employers do not have an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment relationships.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationAbsence Control PolicyAt-Will EmploymentGood Faith and Fair DealingSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionEmployment TerminationEvidentiary RulingsCausal Connection
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Travelers Insurance Co. v. Arnold

William F. Arnold, claiming to be an employee of Shamrock Van Lines, filed a workers' compensation claim against Shamrock's insurer, The Travelers Insurance Company, after sustaining accidental injuries. A jury found Arnold was an employee and totally and permanently incapacitated. The insurer appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for both the employment status and the permanency of incapacity, and alleged jury misconduct. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Shamrock had the right to control the details of work for both Fleming and Arnold, establishing an employer-employee relationship, and that lay witness testimony was sufficient to support the jury's finding of permanent incapacity. It also found no probable injury from alleged jury misconduct.

Texas LawWorkmen's CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRight of Control TestTotal Permanent DisabilityJury FindingsMedical EvidenceLay Witness TestimonyAppellate Procedure
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 475 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