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

Denco CS Corporation v. Body Bar, LLC

Body Bar, LLC sued Denco CS Corporation after Denco filed mechanic's liens on property leased by Body Bar, leading the new property owner, Bre Throne Preston Park, LLC, to withhold a $25,000 tenant improvement reimbursement. Body Bar sought declaratory relief, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference, and Denco counterclaimed for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Body Bar, invalidating the liens and finding Denco liable for breach of contract and tortious interference, awarding damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the invalidity of Denco's liens and the dismissal of Denco's claims but reversed the findings of Body Bar's breach of contract and tortious interference claims, and the $25,000 damage award, remanding these issues for further proceedings due to insufficient evidence of damages.

Contract disputeMechanic's lienStatutory lienConstitutional lienTortious interferenceBreach of contractQuantum meruitUnjust enrichmentSummary judgmentReal property
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Custom-Crete, Inc. v. K-Bar Services, Inc.

Custom-Crete, Inc. appealed a default judgment in a case where K-Bar Services, Inc. sued them on an alleged oral contract. The appellate court found that Custom-Crete's non-attorney corporate representative filed a defective answer, which was nonetheless sufficient to prevent a no-answer default. The court also determined that Custom-Crete did not receive the mandatory forty-five days' notice for the trial setting, and their non-attorney representative's presence at trial did not constitute a waiver of this right. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's default judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial, emphasizing that mere negligence does not justify denying a new trial under the Craddock test when due process is violated.

Default JudgmentAppellate ReviewDue ProcessNotice RequirementsCorporate RepresentationNon-Attorney RepresentationMotion for New TrialWaiverTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAbuse of Discretion
References
23
Case No. 03-00-00282-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2000

Gerald H. Laubach v. State Bar of Texas

Gerald H. Laubach appealed the district court's dismissal of his lawsuit against the State Bar of Texas. Laubach had sued the State Bar alleging improper handling of his grievance against an attorney and violations of disciplinary procedures, claiming damages from the misuse of tangible property related to his grievance. The State Bar asserted sovereign and statutory immunity, which the district court upheld. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for claims involving the negligent use of information in documents. Furthermore, the court noted that the State Bar and its agents are explicitly granted absolute immunity from suit for actions taken in the course of their official duties under Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure Rule 15.11.

Sovereign ImmunityStatutory ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActGrievance ProcedureProfessional MisconductState Bar of TexasOrder of DismissalJudicial ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTort Claim
References
12
Case No. 07-18-00377-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2020

Isabel De La Hoya Moreno v. K-Bar Texas Electric, Inc.

Appellants, the surviving spouse and children of Anthony Moreno, filed suit against his employer, K-Bar Texas Electric, Inc., alleging Anthony’s death by electrocution while working on light poles was due to K-Bar's gross negligence. K-Bar, a workers’ compensation subscriber, filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, arguing it lacked actual, subjective awareness of the risk. The trial court granted the motion, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals conducted a de novo review, focusing on whether Appellants presented at least a scintilla of evidence for K-Bar's gross negligence. The court found no evidence that K-Bar was subjectively aware that the light pole was improperly energized, therefore concluding there was no conscious indifference to risk. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment for K-Bar.

Workers' Compensation ActGross NegligenceSummary JudgmentElectrocution DeathEmployer LiabilityActual Subjective AwarenessConscious IndifferenceNo-Evidence MotionDe Novo ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rattikin Title Co. v. Grievance Committee of State Bar of Texas

The Rattikin Title Company appealed a temporary injunction that barred it from preparing legal instruments or providing legal advice in transactions where it was not a direct party or agent. The Grievance Committee of the State Bar of Texas initiated the injunction, asserting that these activities constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, upholding the trial court's finding that the title company's actions, even if inadvertent due to intertwined operations with a law firm, were illegal under Texas law. The court reiterated that the 'practice of law' includes conveyancing and advising on legal instruments for consideration, and such acts by a corporation are enjoinable. The decision emphasized that the preservation of status quo in injunction cases involving law violations means ceasing the unlawful acts. The court also upheld the trial judge's discretion in not enjoining the title company from certain actions for mortgage loan companies, classifying it as a novel legal question.

Unauthorized Practice of LawTemporary InjunctionTitle InsuranceLegal InstrumentsCorporate Practice of LawAttorney-Client RelationshipGrievance CommitteeState BarTexas LawAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 03-00-00801-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2001

Reliance National Indemnity Company v. Laura Rose Bar-Yardin and United Fashions of Texas, Ltd.

Reliance National Indemnity Company appealed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Laura Rose Bar-Yardin and United Fashions of Texas Ltd. The case stemmed from a car accident involving Corinne Meler, a T.G.I. Friday's employee, who died while acting within the scope of her employment. Because Meler had no qualified legal beneficiaries, Reliance, as the workers' compensation carrier, paid death benefits to the Subsequent Injury Fund. Reliance then sued Bar-Yardin, asserting subrogation rights to recover these benefits, arguing the Fund qualified as a 'legal beneficiary.' The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that under Texas law, a workers' compensation carrier is not entitled to subrogation for death benefits paid to the Subsequent Injury Fund, as the Fund lacks a direct cause of action against a third-party tortfeasor to which the carrier could be subrogated.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation RightsSubsequent Injury FundLegal BeneficiaryDeath BenefitsSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeCar AccidentThird-Party LiabilityInsurance Carrier
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine, & Furniture Workers v. Unisys Corp.

This case involves a consolidated class action against Unisys Corporation and The Unisys Corporation Medical Plan, alleging unlawful changes to retiree medical benefits under LMRA, ERISA, and common law. The Court had conditionally certified a settlement class and preliminarily approved a Stipulation of Settlement, which included a 'Bar Notice' aimed at unrepresented persons concerning settlement trust accounts. Plaintiffs from related actions, seeking to intervene, argued the Bar Notice violated due process rights. The Court denied the application for leave to intervene but granted the proposed intervenors amicus curiae status. Significantly, the Court vacated its prior approval of the Bar Notice, ruling that its attempt to extinguish claims of unrepresented individuals was contrary to Second Circuit law, particularly the precedent set by National Super Spuds, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exchange.

Class ActionInterventionSettlement AgreementBar NoticeERISALMRADue ProcessRes JudicataRetiree BenefitsTrust Funds
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc.

The Chapter 11 debtor, Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc., moved to disallow James E. Parks' claim, arguing it was filed after the court-ordered bar date of October 30, 1990. Parks, a former customer, did not receive actual notice of the bar date, although the debtor was aware of his potential claim through letters from Legal Services. The court found that due process requires actual notice for known creditors and determined that the debtor had actual notice of Parks' asserted claim. Therefore, the court concluded that Parks was entitled to actual notice, which he did not receive, and granted an extension for his claim. Parks' proof of claim, filed on May 17, 1993, was deemed timely, and the debtor's motion to expunge was denied.

Bankruptcy LawProof of ClaimBar DateExcusable NeglectActual NoticeConstructive NoticeDue ProcessCreditors' RightsChapter 11Debtor in Possession
References
3
Case No. ADJ11354041
Regular
Sep 16, 2019

SEVERIANA SALAZAR GALVAN vs. SPRINGHILL SUITES BY MARRIOTT LOS ANGELES LAX/MANHATTAN BEACH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior decision that barred the applicant's claim. The applicant alleged a cumulative industrial injury but filed after notice of termination. The Board found that an exception to the post-termination bar applied because the Labor Code Section 5412 date of injury was subsequent to the notice of termination. Consequently, the applicant's claim is not barred, and all other issues are deferred.

Labor Code § 3600(a)(10)Labor Code § 5412post-termination claimdate of injurycumulative injurydisabilityimpairment of earnings capacityratable permanent disabilityJ. T. ThorpInc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Butler)
References
6
Case No. 03-15-00007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2015

John Doe v. Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline And Linda Acevedo, in Her Official Capacity as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas

John Doe, the Appellant, filed a grievance against a Texas-licensed attorney. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC) dismissed the grievance. Doe then filed a declaratory judgment action against the State Bar Defendants (Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas, Commission for Lawyer Discipline, and Linda Acevedo in her official capacity as Chief Disciplinary Counsel) after the CDC denied his request for its recommendation to the Summary Disposition Panel (SDP), citing confidentiality rules. The trial court dismissed Doe's claims for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, lack of standing or mootness, and lack of jurisdiction over his request related to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Doe appeals this dismissal, arguing that the State Bar Defendants are not immune from suit under Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure 15.09 or Sefzik, and that his claims are justiciable and do not seek to enjoin a grievance proceeding. He asserts he has standing due to an injury-in-fact and that the case is not moot under the 'public interest' exception.

Attorney DisciplineGrievance ProcessSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActionLegal EthicsJudicial ReviewTexas LawConfidentiality of GrievancesDue ProcessAdministrative Law
References
190
Showing 1-10 of 6,966 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