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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adkins v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.

This case addresses whether a Texas trial judge has the authority to change the terms of attorneys’ fee contracts between attorneys and their clients in mass tort litigation that is not a class action. The Appellants, consisting of 49 law firms led by Fleming, Hovenkamp & Grayson, representing approximately 37,000 plaintiffs, challenged a trial court’s order that reduced their contingent fees and expenses from a settlement with Shell Oil Company and Hoechst Celanese Corporation regarding defective polybutylene plumbing systems. The appellate court reviewed general contract law, exceptions (fraud, incapacity), and the inapplicability of class action and common fund doctrines. It also considered whether the settlement agreement itself granted the trial judge such authority. The court concluded that, absent pleading and proof of barratry, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, incapacity, illegality, class action, or common fund doctrine applicability, a trial judge lacks the power to modify a fully-performed attorney fee contract. Therefore, the court reversed the portions of the appealed judgments dealing with the award of attorneys’ fees and remanded the cases for further proceedings.

Attorney's FeesContingency Fee ContractsContract LawAppellate ReviewMass Tort LitigationTrial Court AuthoritySettlement AgreementTexas LawClass Action InapplicabilityCommon Fund Doctrine Inapplicability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stuessy v. Byrd, Davis and Eisenberg

This case involves an appeal from the grant of a temporary injunction concerning the law of interference. Michael DeLeuil, injured in his employment, hired attorneys to represent him in a potential workman's compensation suit. His employer, E. E. Stuessy, and office manager, Fred Crooks, pressured DeLeuil to dismiss his attorneys, threatening him with job loss, which was deemed interference with the attorney-client contract. The trial court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the attorneys. The appellate court affirmed this decision, rejecting the appellants' claims of exercising absolute rights and lack of malice, and confirming the protection of the attorney-client contract.

Interference with ContractAttorney-Client RelationshipTemporary InjunctionEmployer CoercionWorkman's CompensationAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas LawEmployment LawBusiness Ethics
References
4
Case No. 01-96-01528-CV, 01-98-00409-CV, 01-98-00016-CV, 01-98-00413-CV, 01-98-00124-CV, 01-98-00103-CV, 01-97-01321-CV, 01-98-00414-CV, 01-00-00289-CV, 01-00-00288-CV, 01-98-00018-CV, 01-98-00412-CV, 01-98-00415-CV, 01-98-00410-CV, 01-98-00411-CV and 01-00-00290-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2000

In Re Polybutylene Plumbing Litigation

The case addresses whether a trial judge can unilaterally modify attorneys' fee contracts in mass tort litigation outside of class action rules. Appellants, a coalition of 49 law firms, challenged a trial court's order reducing their contingent fees in a polybutylene plumbing settlement. The trial court, acting *sua sponte*, deemed the aggregate fees excessive despite the absence of fraud, fiduciary breach, or client incapacity claims. The Court of Appeals examined the applicability of general contract law, class action principles, the common fund doctrine, and inherent judicial authority. The appellate court concluded that none of these exceptions allowed for the modification of valid, fully-performed attorney-client contracts, thereby reversing the trial court's decision regarding attorneys' fees.

Attorneys' FeesContingent Fee ContractsContract LawJudicial AuthorityMass Tort LitigationPolybutylene PlumbingNot a Class ActionCommon Fund Doctrine InapplicableTexas LawAppellate Review
References
26
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. E2010-00170-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2010

Dillard Construction, Inc. v. Haron Contracting Corp.

Dillard Construction, Inc. (Dillard) appealed a Chancery Court decision regarding a complex construction dispute with its demolition subcontractor, Havron Contracting Corp. (Havron). The lower court held Dillard liable to Havron for $91,100 under quantum meruit for work performed by Havron's subcontractors, denied Dillard an offset for damaged electrical equipment, and allowed Havron to recover attorney's fees awarded against it to its subcontractor H&S Construction through a 'pass-through' indemnity theory from Dillard. Dillard challenged the quantum meruit award and the denial of the offset, while Havron challenged the denial of indemnification for its own incurred attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the quantum meruit award and the denial of the offset, finding the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's findings. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny Havron its own attorney's fees, citing Havron's lack of good faith in denying payment to H&S and its violation of the Prompt Pay Act.

Construction DisputeQuantum MeruitContract LawIndemnityAttorney's FeesSubcontractor ClaimsPrompt Pay ActBreach of ContractEquitable RemediesAppellate Review
References
12
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
Dec 14, 2017

Border Demolition & Environmental, Inc. v. Ernesto Pineda

This appeal concerns a legal malpractice lawsuit filed by Border Demolition & Environmental, Inc. against attorney Ernesto Pineda. Border Demolition alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, claiming Pineda failed to defend them in an underlying wrongful discharge suit despite an alleged implied attorney-client relationship. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Pineda on the breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims, deeming them impermissible fracturing of the legal malpractice claim. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the legal malpractice claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the implied attorney-client relationship and Pineda's duty of care. The case has been remanded for further proceedings on the legal malpractice claim.

Legal MalpracticeAttorney DutyImplied ContractAttorney-Client RelationshipSummary Judgment AppealProfessional NegligenceBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractTexas Court of AppealsEl Paso District
References
66
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
Showing 1-10 of 8,336 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