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. 13-22-00377-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2023

In Re Kirby Offshore Marine Operating LLC v. the State of Texas

Relator Kirby Offshore Marine Operating, LLC (Kirby) sought a writ of mandamus against the trial court, asserting that it abused its discretion by granting a new trial in favor of real party in interest Southern Recycling, LLC (Southern). The underlying dispute arose from Kirby's sale of a tank barge to Southern for scrap. The barge caught fire during shipbreaking, causing personal injury and death to employees. After settling personal injury claims, Kirby and Southern litigated breach of contract and warranty claims, with a jury awarding damages to Kirby but none to Southern. The trial court initially entered a take-nothing judgment but later granted Southern's motion for a new trial, citing an irreconcilable conflict in the jury's verdict and insufficient evidence for zero damages. The appellate court reviewed the new trial order and found no irreconcilable conflict in the jury's findings. It also determined that the jury's verdict of zero damages for Southern was supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence, considering evidence of Southern's and its subsidiary ISL's own failures to comply with safety procedures and contract terms. The appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its new trial order.

MandamusNew TrialJury VerdictBreach of WarrantyProximate CauseSufficiency of EvidenceShipbreaking AccidentHazardous MaterialsTexas Court of AppealsContract Dispute
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kenning v. Bludco Barge & Towing Co.

Randall Kenning appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in his suit against former employer Bludco Barge and Towing Company and Central American Barge & Towing Company. Kenning sued under the Jones Act, LHWCA, and general maritime law, claiming personal injury from toxic chemical exposure while repairing a cargo seal on a barge. The court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Kenning did not qualify as a Jones Act seaman as he was not permanently assigned to a vessel nor did a substantial part of his work occur on a vessel. Furthermore, the warranty of seaworthiness did not extend to him as he was tasked with repairing the known unseaworthy condition that allegedly caused his injuries. Kenning waived his LHWCA negligence claim during oral argument.

Jones ActLHWCAMaritime LawSeaman StatusUnseaworthinessSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryToxic Chemical ExposureBarge OperationsVessel Repair
References
22
Case No. No. 20-0505
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2022

in Re Eagleridge Operating, Llc

In this premises-defect case, Eagleridge Operating, LLC sought mandamus relief after a trial court struck its designation of Aruba Petroleum, Inc. as a responsible third party. Eagleridge contended that Aruba, a former wellsite owner-operator, held continuing responsibility for injuries from a burst gas pipeline under an independent contractor theory, despite having conveyed its ownership interest. The Supreme Court of Texas denied the petition, affirming the lower courts' decision that Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Jenkins was controlling. The Court reiterated that a property owner acts solely as an owner when improving its own property, and responsibility for premises defects generally transfers with the conveyance of ownership. The Court concluded that Aruba's compensation as operator of record did not transform its role from owner to independent contractor, and thus its responsibility terminated upon conveyance.

Premises liabilityMandamusResponsible third partyProperty ownershipOil and gas lawIndependent contractorOwner-operatorTexas Supreme CourtAppellate procedureCivil Practice and Remedies Code
References
28
Case No. 10-10-00171-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2012

Mary Frances Haferkamp v. SSC Waco Greenview Operating Company, LP, Mariner Healthcare Management Company, SSC Pasadena Operating Company, LP, LLC, Savanseniorcare, LLC, Savaseniorcare Administrative Services, LLC

Mary Frances Haferkamp appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of SSC Waco Greenview Operating Company LP and other entities. Haferkamp sued for negligence due to an alleged workplace injury, claiming appellees were nonsubscribers to worker’s compensation insurance and failed to provide a safe workplace and adequate tools. Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of proximate cause and no breach of duty. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Haferkamp's deposition testimony conclusively established that the appellees' alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of her injury, as the patient's sudden act was unpreventable and she would not have used a gait belt even if available.

Negligence ClaimWorkplace InjurySummary Judgment AppealProximate CauseTexas Labor CodeNonsubscriber EmployerEmployer Duty of CareAppellate ReviewDeposition TestimonyGait Belt
References
14
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. 02-14-00303-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2015

Titan Operating, LLC v. Marcus C. Marsden, Jr. and Laura B. Marsden

The case involves Titan Operating, LLC appealing a trial court's judgment favoring Marcus C. Marsden, Jr. and Laura B. Marsden in a nuisance suit. The Marsdens claimed Titan's oil and gas drilling operations near their home constituted a nuisance. However, the Marsdens had previously signed an oil and gas lease and an easement agreement with Titan (or its predecessors), receiving bonus payments and ongoing royalties. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, reversed the trial court's decision, applying the doctrine of quasi-estoppel. The court ruled that it was unconscionable for the Marsdens to accept financial benefits from transactions authorizing drilling operations while simultaneously suing for nuisance based on the effects of those same operations. Consequently, the appellate court rendered judgment that the Marsdens take nothing.

Oil and Gas LawNuisanceQuasi-EstoppelProperty RightsMineral RightsLease AgreementEasementAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureLandowner Rights
References
24
Case No. 18-0656
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2019

Creative Oil & Gas Operating, Llc v. Lona Hills Ranch, Llc

This case concerns the application of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) to counterclaims in an oil and gas lease dispute. Petitioners, Creative Oil & Gas, LLC and Creative Oil & Gas Operating, LLC, filed counterclaims against Respondent, Lona Hills Ranch, LLC, alleging false communications to third parties about lease termination and breach of contract by initiating litigation without proper notice. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed in part and reversed in part the appellate court's judgment. The Court ruled that private business communications about a single well's production were not matters of public concern under the TCPA's free speech provision. However, the Operator's counterclaim regarding the Ranch's legal filings fell under the TCPA's right to petition but was dismissed as the Operator was not a party to the lease.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAAnti-SLAPPOil and GasLease DisputeCounterclaimsFree SpeechRight to PetitionPublic ConcernPrivate Communications
References
14
Case No. 07-15-00297-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2015

Dimock Operating Company, and Joe W. Dimock, D/B/A Dimock Petroleum v. Sutherland Energy Co., LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning a disputed oil and gas farmout agreement and its associated operating agreement. Appellant Dimock Operating Company challenges the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction in favor of Appellee Sutherland Energy Co., LLC, and its denial of Dimock's own application for a temporary injunction. The core dispute revolves around alleged breaches of contract by Sutherland, including unauthorized charges exceeding $2.4 million for "land" and "seismic" costs and the inclusion of litigation expenses as operating costs, which Dimock claims improperly delayed the "project payout" of the Hamrick #3 well. Dimock argues that the Hamrick #3 well reached payout in March 2014, entitling it to a 51% working interest. Dimock also contends that the trial court erroneously rewrote the contract's term from three years to an indefinite period and issued an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.

Oil and GasFarmout AgreementOperating AgreementTemporary InjunctionBreach of ContractProject PayoutSeismic ExplorationLand CostsLitigation ExpensesStatute of Frauds
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Combs v. STP Nuclear Operating Co.

This case concerns an appeal by the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of Texas from a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of STP Nuclear Operating Company (STP). The core dispute revolves around the State's ability to collect independently procured insurance tax from STP, an operator of a nuclear power plant required to carry insurance from a Bermuda-incorporated, non-Texas-licensed insurer (NEIL). STP had paid these taxes under protest, asserting they violated Due Process, Equal Protection, and the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the independently procured insurance tax, as applied to STP, does not violate Due Process or the McCarran-Ferguson Act due to STP's significant in-state activities related to procuring the insurance. The court also rejected STP's arguments regarding equal protection and the vagueness of the statutory scheme, thereby rendering judgment in favor of the Comptroller.

Independently Procured Insurance TaxMcCarran-Ferguson ActDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentState TaxationInsurance RegulationNuclear Power PlantForeign CorporationsTexas Insurance Code
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 450 v. Mid-Valley, Inc.

The International Union of Operating Engineers (Union) sought judicial enforcement of an arbitrator's decision against Mid-Valley, Inc. (Company). The arbitrator had found the Company violated a collective bargaining agreement by not employing operating engineers for dewatering devices and awarded wage payments to the Union. The Company objected, contending the arbitrator exceeded his authority, particularly regarding the monetary award. The District Court affirmed the arbitrator's authority to fashion a remedy but distinguished between compensatory and punitive damages. The court found the first segment of the arbitrator's award, covering the period before the arbitrator's decision, to be punitive and denied its enforcement, allowing only nominal damages. The second segment, intended to incentivize compliance, was upheld and enforced. The Union's request for attorney's fees was denied.

Arbitration EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeArbitrator AuthorityContract BreachPunitive DamagesNominal DamagesJudicial ReviewGrievance ResolutionWage Payments
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,930 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