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

Diaz v. Attorney General of State of Tex.

This appeal involves Mike M. Perez challenging a trial court's allocation of a workers' compensation settlement to his child support obligations, and Tony Diaz, Perez's former attorney, appealing the trial court's failure to allocate enough proceeds to his contractual claims. The court found that the Assistant Attorney General, who asserted the child support claim, did not properly intervene in the original hearing by failing to file a petition. Consequently, the appellate court sustained Perez's first point of error and modified the judgment to remove the child support bond. The court also affirmed the trial court's implied finding that both Perez and Diaz assented to the abandonment of their attorney-client contract, thus making an award based on the reasonable value of services proper. Diaz's claim for additional attorney's fees for breach of contract was also denied due to a lack of proof of presentment.

Child Support ArrearageWorkers' Compensation SettlementAttorney's Fees DisputeIntervention ProcedurePleading RequirementsDue Process ViolationWaiver of ErrorQuantum MeruitContract AbandonmentAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03294 [184 AD3d 223]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2020

Matter of Mauser

Marc R. Mauser, an attorney, was publicly censured by the Appellate Division, First Department, for professional misconduct. The Attorney Grievance Committee initiated disciplinary action against him for neglecting a client's personal injury case, failing to communicate for approximately 18 months, and making misrepresentations to the client, mediator, and the Committee regarding the case status and reasons for delays. Mauser also failed to diligently finalize a settlement and disburse funds promptly. The parties reached a joint agreement for discipline by consent, stipulating to violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct, including neglect of a legal matter, failure to promptly comply with client requests for information, failure to act with reasonable diligence, inadequate supervision of staff, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Despite aggravating factors, mitigating factors such as no prior discipline and acceptance of responsibility led to the agreed-upon sanction of public censure, which the Court granted.

Attorney disciplineprofessional misconductneglect of dutyfailure to communicatemisrepresentationpublic censureRules of Professional Conductsettlement delayclient communicationsupervisory failures
References
3
Case No. 13-07-165-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2007

in Re: Juan Angel Guerra, District and County Attorney for Willacy County, State of Texas

The case involves Juan Angel Guerra, District Attorney of Willacy County, seeking a writ of mandamus against Judge Migdalia Lopez for appointing Gustavo Garza as attorney pro tem to investigate Guerra's alleged misconduct. Guerra argued the judge abused her discretion by not following removal procedures under Chapter 87 of the Texas Local Government Code, appointing an attorney pro tem without his consent, and not providing notice or a hearing. The court overruled most issues but conditionally granted mandamus relief to vacate Garza's appointment due to his conflict of interest and potential role as a witness, particularly concerning allegations of voter fraud in an election where Garza was Guerra's opponent. The court also denied motions for contempt and sanctions.

MandamusAttorney Pro TemJudicial DiscretionConflict of InterestGrand Jury InvestigationDue ProcessOfficial MisconductVoter FraudDisqualification of ProsecutorTexas Law
References
89
Case No. 13-10-00016-CV, 13-10-00023-CV, 13-10-00059-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Cascos v. Cameron County Attorney

This case consolidates three interlocutory appeals primarily involving a dispute between the Cameron County Commissioners Court and the Cameron County Attorney. Appellants, comprising county officials and attorneys, challenged trial court orders that granted a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction against them, favoring the County Attorney, and denied their plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court conditionally granted the appellants' petition for writ of mandamus, ensuring their right to supersede the temporary injunction during appeal. While dismissing an appeal regarding the temporary restraining orders as moot, the court ultimately dissolved the temporary injunction and reversed the trial court's judgment. The court concluded that the Commissioners Court possesses implied powers to manage county business and employ legal counsel, and the County Attorney does not hold an exclusive right to represent the county in all civil matters, thereby finding the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.

Interlocutory AppealMandamusTemporary InjunctionGovernmental Entity DisputeCounty Attorney DutiesCommissioners Court AuthorityDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory InterpretationRes JudicataMootness Doctrine
References
106
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boring & Tunneling Co. of America, Inc. v. Salazar

This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the defendants (relators) in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. The relators, Boring & Tunneling Company of America, Inc. and Lee Arthur Evans, sought to prevent the discovery of certain documents, claiming they were protected by investigative and attorney-client privileges. The documents included an attorney's letter and file memo, and statements from Lee Arthur Evans and his son, Keith Evans, related to a fatal car accident. The trial court, presided over by Judge Felix Salazar, initially granted a protective order but later rescinded it, ordering the production of the disputed documents. On review, the appellate court determined that the relators failed to prove the applicability of investigative privileges because they did not provide objective evidence that the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation. However, the court found that the attorney-client privilege applied to the attorney's letter to the claims adjuster, but not to the attorney's file memo (due to waiver) or Lee Arthur Evans' statement (due to conflicting evidence regarding the attorney-client relationship at the time). Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted in part, ordering the trial court to rescind its production order only for the attorney's letter to the adjuster, and denied for the other documents.

MandamusDiscoveryAttorney-Client PrivilegeInvestigative PrivilegeWork Product PrivilegePrivileged DocumentsAbuse of DiscretionAnticipation of LitigationPersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle Accident
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PIERCE & WEISS, LLP. v. Subrogation Partners LLC

Plaintiff Pierce & Weiss, LLP sued Subrogation Partners LLC, AON Recovery, Inc., and AON Re, Inc. for unpaid legal fees related to a breach of an attorney-client retainer contract. The central issue revolved around a motion for admission pro hac vice filed by attorneys Brian Letofsky and Daniel Watkins, seeking to represent Pierce & Weiss. Defendants opposed, arguing a conflict of interest due to Mr. Letofsky's prior and ongoing representation of Subrogation and AON in other matters. The Court determined that AON was a current client and Subrogation a former client of Mr. Letofsky, thus creating a conflict of interest due to divided loyalties. Consequently, the Court denied the motions for admission pro hac vice for both Mr. Letofsky and his partner, Mr. Watkins, disqualifying their firm, Watkins & Letofsky, from representing the plaintiff.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestPro Hac Vice MotionAttorney-Client RelationshipLegal EthicsLaw Firm RepresentationFee DisputeSubrogationRetainer AgreementProfessional Conduct Rules
References
32
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04223 [208 AD3d 77]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Matter of Faillace

This case concerns reciprocal discipline against attorney Michael Faillace, who was admitted to practice law in the First Judicial Department in 1984. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought a two-year suspension for Faillace, based on discipline imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Faillace was charged with serious professional misconduct, including underpaying clients' monies in violation of court orders, making misrepresentations during an investigation, and refusing to honor clients' decisions to settle claims. These actions violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. Faillace admitted to all charges and consented to a two-year suspension, which was implemented by the Southern District Court in November 2021. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the Committee's motion, imposing a two-year reciprocal suspension effective August 1, 2022, emphasizing the significant weight given to sanctions imposed by the initial jurisdiction and the consistency with prior disciplinary actions for similar misconduct.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethics violationLawyer suspensionReciprocal disciplineClient funds misappropriationMisrepresentation to tribunalFailure to abide by client settlement decisionAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionSouthern District of New York
References
7
Case No. 14-00-01459-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2002

Deutsch, George v. Hoover, Bax & Slovacek, L.L.P.

The dispute in this case arose out of the attorney-client relationship between appellee Hoover, Bax & Slovacek, L.L.P. and its former client, appellant George Deutsch. The client challenges the trial court's judgment awarding attorney's fees to the law firm based on unpaid legal bills and ordering that he take nothing on his counterclaims against the law firm and the individual attorney who handled his file. The court concluded the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict against the client as to his claim for fee forfeiture based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty relating to the law firm's conflicts of interest. Accordingly, the case is reversed and remanded to the trial court for a jury trial on the disputed fact issues regarding this claim and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Attorney-Client PrivilegeBreach of Fiduciary DutyConflicts of InterestFee ForfeitureLegal MalpracticeDirected VerdictAppellate ProcedureJury InstructionsAttorney FeesEquitable Remedies
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 6,527 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