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. E2024-00383-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2025

DORIAN JONES v. AUTOMATED BUILDING SYSTEMS INC.

Dorian Jones appealed the Circuit Court's decision to set aside default judgments against Automated Building Systems Inc. and Carol Ann Graybeal, and the subsequent involuntary dismissal of his complaint. Jones had sued the appellees for breach of contract, fraud, and property damage, and initially secured default judgments. However, the trial court later set these aside, finding that Jones failed to properly serve the defendants, thus lacking personal jurisdiction. During the bench trial, Jones primarily focused on the propriety of setting aside the default judgments rather than presenting evidence for his substantive claims. Consequently, the trial court dismissed his complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that service of process was not strictly compliant with Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, rendering the default judgments void.

Breach of ContractFraudProperty DamageDefault JudgmentService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionRule 60.02 MotionBench TrialInvoluntary DismissalAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. 2-04-065-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2005

Tarrant County Hospital District D/B/A John Peter Smith Hospital v. GE Automation Services, Inc., F/K/A GE Industrial Systems Solutions, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., F/K/A GE Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company

Appellant Tarrant County Hospital District appealed a summary judgment granted to Appellees GE Automation Services, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company. The suit stemmed from a 1996 transaction where Appellant alleged Appellees provided a defective bus duct system, leading to contract, warranty, products liability, and negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the four-year statute of limitations under the Uniform Commercial Code (Texas Business & Commerce Code § 2.725) barred the contract and warranty claims, overriding governmental immunity. Furthermore, the court held that the economic loss rule precluded Appellant's tort claims, as the alleged damages constituted economic losses to the subject matter of the contract itself.

Summary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityStatute of LimitationsEconomic Loss RuleBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyProducts LiabilityNegligenceUniform Commercial CodeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fisher v. GE Medical Systems

Plaintiffs Mark Fisher and Chuck Floyd filed a collective action complaint against GE Medical Systems under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging improper compensation and overtime wages. Defendant GE Medical Systems filed a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration and mediation. The court focused on the motion to compel mediation and found that the company's "RESOLVE Program," an internal dispute resolution process requiring mediation, constituted a binding agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court rejected plaintiffs' arguments that mediation was inappropriate for FLSA claims and that the RESOLVE program lacked consent or consideration. Citing Tennessee contract law, the court ruled that the plaintiffs' continued employment and the mutual promises within the program served as sufficient consideration. Consequently, the defendant's motion to compel mediation was granted, and the case was stayed until the mediation process is completed.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Mandatory MediationEmployment LawFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Contract LawUnilateral ContractConsiderationCollective ActionOvertime WagesDispute Resolution
References
17
Case No. 14-05-00845-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2007

Nova Information Systems Inc. v. Nidhi and Roneil Inc. D/B/A PIC N PAC

Appellee Nidhi and Roneil, Inc. entered a contract with Nova Information Systems, Inc. and Brian Sowada for credit card processing for their convenience store. Appellants failed to properly program the credit card machines, leading to appellee's funds being routed to a third party and a loss of $4,938.83 in credit card charges. This material breach forced the closure of the store and resulted in a $20,000 loss on their initial investment of $120,000. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the appellee. On appeal, appellants challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration and the sufficiency of the evidence for the damages awarded. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's final judgment, ruling that appellants waived their right to compel arbitration and that sufficient evidence supported the damages.

breach of contractarbitration waiverlegal sufficiency of evidencefactual sufficiency of evidencedamages awardcredit card processing disputeloss of investmentTexas Court of Appealsbusiness disputejudgment affirmation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lowcher v. Beame

Plaintiff, a former school secretary, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, the New York Teachers’ Retirement System, and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. She alleged deprivation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection after her application for accident disability benefits was denied. The Medical Board of the New York Teachers’ Retirement System determined her disability was not proximately caused by a 1970 assault, and denied her requests for legal representation, witnesses, and access to a referred physician's report. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Metzner denied the motion, ruling that while a full adversarial hearing was not required, the plaintiff was entitled to know the evidence upon which the Retirement System made its determination, implying a due process violation in denying access to the medical report.

Due ProcessEqual ProtectionCivil Rights ActionDisability BenefitsAccident DisabilityAdministrative LawMedical BoardRight to CounselCross-ExaminationAccess to Evidence
References
8
Case No. CA66-H-509
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1970

Kurio v. United States

The case involved Bernard R. Kurio's suit for a refund of 1963-1964 payroll taxes against the United States. A proposed settlement failed due to IRS processing errors, misapplication of plaintiff's payments, and a lack of mutual assent regarding the terms. The court concluded that no binding settlement contract was formed. Consequently, the court granted Kurio a refund of $15,612.89, ordered the government to correct its tax records by reapplying payments to the correct accounts, and dismissed the government's counterclaim seeking to enforce the alleged settlement. The court also criticized the IRS's inefficient automated data processing system and its failure to address errors promptly.

Tax RefundPayroll TaxesContract DisputeSettlement AgreementIRS Administrative ErrorsAutomated Data Processing SystemBurden of ProofDiscovery SanctionsTax LiensStatutory Interpretation
References
35
Case No. 01-10-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Microcheck Systems. Inc v. Microcheck Systems, Inc., Chris Zigrossi, Scott Murphy, Mike Smith, Individually and D/B/A CMS Technology AKA CMS Technologies, Michoice Technology Systems, Inc., Jim Hayden, Alex Campbell and Jason Jablecki

Appellants MicroCheck Systems, Inc., MicroCheck Solutions, Inc., and John Manning challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to reinstate a case dismissed for want of prosecution. Their attorney, Scarlett May, failed to appear at a docket call due to a mistaken belief that she had been replaced by new counsel, Patrick Hubbard. The trial court denied the motion, stating a policy against missing docket calls. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by not applying the correct legal standard, which requires reinstatement if the failure to appear was due to accident or mistake and not conscious indifference. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionMotion to ReinstateAbuse of DiscretionAttorney ErrorMistake of CounselConscious IndifferenceTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 165aAppellate ReviewSubstitution of CounselTrial Court Discretion
References
11
Case No. E2009-00116-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2010

Tennessee Rand, Inc. v. Automation Industrial Group, LLC

This case involves a complex business dispute between Tennessee Rand, Inc. (Rand) and Automation Industrial Group, LLC (Automation), formerly partners, now adverse entities. Rand initiated litigation seeking to enjoin Automation's name use, recover asset value, and obtain reimbursement for rent and tax payments. Automation filed a counterclaim for unpaid labor and expenses. The trial court's initial judgment found unjust enrichment in favor of Rand but also awarded Automation on its counterclaim. This decision was later altered, nullifying Automation's award due to a finding of fraud. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's findings, reinstating Automation's counterclaim award of $2,270,759.22 plus interest, affirming Rand's reimbursement for rent and taxes, and reversing Rand's claim for Dieco assets. The appellate court also reversed the trial court's finding of fraud against Automation, citing Rand's complicity in creating billing confusion. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Business DisputeCorporate OwnershipUnjust EnrichmentFraudCounterclaimContractual DisputeAsset TransferRent and TaxesJudicial DiscretionAppeals
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

This is a purported class action brought by Kelley Cunningham and Tam-mye Cunningham against Electronic Data Systems (EDS) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime wages. EDS moved for summary judgment, asserting the "Air Carrier Exemption" to the FLSA, arguing plaintiffs worked under the direction of American Airlines. The court denied this motion, stating that the "control prong" of the National Mediation Board test focuses on the relationship between the air carrier and the employer (EDS), not just the individual employees, and found genuine issues of material fact. Additionally, the court granted EDS's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim regarding FLSA's record-keeping requirements, as there is no private right of action for employees to enforce these provisions. Defendant may renew the motion for summary judgment with further evidence.

FLSA ExemptionsAir Carrier ExemptionRailway Labor Act CoverageOvertime Pay DisputeClass Action LawsuitSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityNMB Control-Function TestTelecommunications Industry
References
19
Case No. 01-19-00300-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2021

Michelle Hudson v. Memorial Hospital System

Michelle Hudson sued Memorial Hospital System, Memorial Hermann Health System, ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation, and C.B. Richard Ellis, Inc. for personal injuries sustained in a malfunctioning elevator on Memorial Hermann's property. Hudson, an employee of Memorial Hermann (a non-subscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act), alleged the defendants were negligent and liable under premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Hudson appealed, arguing the trial court incorrectly applied premises liability principles instead of ordinary negligence and that genuine issues of material fact existed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Hudson's claim against Memorial Hermann sounded exclusively in premises liability and she failed to preserve her argument. The court also found Hudson provided insufficient evidence to overcome the no-evidence summary judgment for CBRE and ThyssenKrupp.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityOrdinary NegligenceSummary JudgmentElevator AccidentWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberEmployer DutyProperty Manager LiabilityMaintenance ServicesAppellate Review
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 4,082 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