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. 09-24-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2026

Universal Protection Service, LP D/B/A Allied Universal Security and Universal Protection Service GP, Inc. v. the Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC

Universal Protection Services, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security (Allied) and The Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC (TWM) were parties to a Security Agreement. A patron, Penny Prater, sued both Allied and TWM, along with other entities, for negligence after a robbery in the mall parking lot, alleging failures in security services and training. Allied and TWM filed competing motions for summary judgment regarding Allied's contractual duty to defend TWM, which Allied had refused. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWM, finding that Allied had a duty to defend TWM based on the Agreement's terms and Illinois law. Allied appealed this decision, arguing the contract's indemnification provision did not require it to defend TWM for TWM's own alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the contractual provision clearly required Allied to defend TWM when the alleged acts of negligence or failures resulted from its provision of security services.

Contract InterpretationDuty to DefendIndemnification AgreementSecurity ServicesNegligence ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois Contract LawTexas Civil ProcedureBreach of Contract
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Asset Protection & Security Services v. Service Employees International Union, Local 200 United

The Union appealed from an order that partially vacated an arbitration award. The arbitrator had determined that Asset Protection & Security Services, LP (APSS) lacked just cause to discharge an employee and ordered reinstatement with back pay. The Supreme Court vacated the award entirely. This appellate court found that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the arbitrator's finding of no just cause for termination, thereby reversing that part of the order. However, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by reinstating the employee and awarding back pay and benefits, citing the Collective Bargaining Agreement's (CBA) limitations on remedies in cases involving ICE-mandated actions. Two judges dissented in part.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeJust CauseArbitrator AuthorityJudicial ReviewPublic PolicyReinstatementBack PayCPLR
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Day v. Summit Security Services Inc.

The plaintiff, a security guard, brought a retaliation claim under Labor Law § 215 against his former employer, Summit Security Services Inc., and alleged co-employers, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and Kirk Leon. Plaintiff alleged termination resulted from a complaint about underpayment by a prior employer. HHC and Leon moved to dismiss, arguing no right of action, while Summit argued it was not the employer at the time of the protected activity. The court denied HHC and Leon's motion, concluding HHC could be considered 'any other person' under the expanded Wage Theft Prevention Act and was not exempt as a political subdivision. Summit's motion to dismiss was granted, as the court found Labor Law § 215 applied only to employers at the time of the protected activity, and the WTPA did not explicitly extend liability to subsequent employers.

RetaliationLabor Law Section 215Wage Theft Prevention ActWTPAEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationMotion to DismissPrevailing WageSecurity IndustryCo-employer Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1992

Berly v. D & L Security Services & Investigations, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a take-nothing summary judgment regarding the wrongful death of Anecletas Berly, a Kroger employee, who was killed by a shoplifter during an apprehension attempt by a security guard, Elbert Phillips, employed by D & L Security Services and Investigations, Inc. The appellants, including Berly's family and Transportation Insurance Company (intervening to protect subrogation interest), sued D & L and Phillips for negligence, alleging improper security and apprehension procedures. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, finding no duty and no proximate cause. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding foreseeability, proximate cause, and legal privilege. The court found that evidence of prior criminal activity at the store raised a fact issue on duty and that Phillips's alleged violations of security procedures could be a cause-in-fact of Berly's death.

NegligenceWrongful DeathSurvival StatutesSummary Judgment AppealForeseeabilityProximate CauseSecurity Guard LiabilityShoplifting IncidentThird-Party Criminal ActEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
Case No. 03-16-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision

E. A.// Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, E. A.

This document is an appeal brief filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas. The appeal concerns an administrative proceeding where E.A. challenged a Texas Health and Human Services Commission order. The order affirmed the Department's decision to place E.A.'s name in the Employee Misconduct Registry after an administrative law judge found E.A. neglected residents at Four J’s Community Living Center. The central argument of the brief is that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over E.A.'s suit for judicial review because E.A. failed to file a timely motion for rehearing, a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department seeks to reverse the trial court's order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and to dismiss E.A.'s suit.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEmployee Misconduct RegistryContested CaseMotion for RehearingJurisdictionAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas Government Code
References
13
Case No. 17-0345
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2019

Patricia Mosley v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Patricia Mosley challenged her placement on the Employee Misconduct Registry by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. She sought judicial review without filing a motion for rehearing, relying on a misleading agency letter and regulation. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed that a motion for rehearing is a jurisdictional prerequisite for judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act. However, the court also ruled that the agency's affirmative misrepresentation regarding the appeal process violated Mosley's due process rights, preventing her from exhausting administrative remedies. The case was remanded to the Health and Human Services Commission to allow Mosley to file a motion for rehearing, thereby restoring her opportunity for judicial review.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewDue ProcessMotion for RehearingEmployee Misconduct RegistryTexas Health and Human Services CommissionTexas Department of Family and Protective ServicesJurisdictional PrerequisiteStatutory InterpretationAgency Misrepresentation
References
43
Case No. 03-16-00358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2016

Patricia Mosley// Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, Patricia Mosley

Patricia Mosley is appealing a trial court's decision that affirmed the Texas Health and Human Services Commission's (HHSC) order to place her on the Employee Misconduct Registry (EMR). This placement stems from an incident where AW, a disabled individual under Mosley's one-to-one supervision, swallowed batteries. Mosley argues that her actions did not constitute neglect, asserting that maintaining constant arm's-length supervision for nearly seven hours alone was impossible, AW's secretive self-harming behavior was unforeseeable given the absence of warning signs, and she lacked adequate training for AW's specific needs. The core legal arguments revolve around the definition of 'neglect' as a negligent act requiring foreseeability and the proper application of a negligence standard versus a strict liability standard.

Employee Misconduct RegistryNegligenceForeseeabilityDirect Care ServicesDisabled IndividualsHealth and Human ServicesAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawSubstantial Evidence RuleSupervision Requirements
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Jermaine Washington, a Black employee, filed a pro se employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Washington alleged racial discrimination based on increased payroll responsibilities, denied transfers to higher-paying sites, and a manager's "threatening" email. He also claimed retaliation after being allegedly threatened with termination for not signing employment documents and experiencing a temporary loss of compensation during a transfer. The court, presided over by Hon. Michael A. Telesca, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Washington failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination and that the alleged retaliatory actions did not constitute materially adverse employment actions or were not causally linked to protected activity. Consequently, Washington's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionFailure to PromoteEmployment At-WillPayroll ResponsibilitiesEmployer-Employee DisputeFederal Court
References
35
Case No. 05-14-01223-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2014

Michael Morford D/B/A Nemaha Water Services v. Esposito Securities, LLC

This case involves an appeal from the 44th District Court of Dallas County, Texas, concerning an arbitration dispute. Appellee-Plaintiff Esposito Securities, LLC, initiated the original action to enforce a pre-dispute arbitration agreement with Appellants-Defendants (Nemaha Water Services entities). The core issue is whether Appellants-Defendants, who balked on a contractual payment obligation related to a transaction, qualify as 'customers' under FINRA Rule 12200, thereby mandating arbitration before FINRA instead of the contractually specified American Arbitration Association (AAA). The trial court granted Appellee-Plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration before the AAA and denied Appellants-Defendants' motion to compel arbitration before FINRA and their subsequent motion to reconsider. This brief argues to affirm the trial court's judgment, contending that Appellants are not 'customers' as defined by FINRA's rules, and that the pre-dispute arbitration agreement to use AAA supersedes any FINRA arbitration claims.

Arbitration AgreementFINRA Rule 12200Customer StatusFinancial ServicesAppealContract DisputeForum Selection ClauseTexas LawFederal Arbitration ActAmerican Arbitration Association
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 12,903 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