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

Mid-South Telecommunications Co. v. Best

This case addresses when a creditor's claim against a debt guarantor accrues under Texas law. Mid-South Telecommunications Company loaned $250,000 to VidiMedix Corporation, with Norman K. Best and Philip W. Faris, Jr. serving as guarantors. VidiMedix defaulted on the promissory note on December 31, 1999, prompting Mid-South to demand payment from the guarantors. Mid-South filed suit against Best and Faris in May 2004 for breach of contract under the guaranty. Best and Faris successfully argued that the claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations, contending the cause of action accrued upon VidiMedix's initial default. The district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Best and Faris was affirmed on appeal, with the court concluding that Mid-South's claim against the guarantors accrued on December 31, 1999.

Statute of LimitationsGuaranty AgreementBreach of ContractDebt AccrualSummary JudgmentTexas Civil PracticePromissory NoteCreditor RightsDebtor DefaultAbsolute Guaranty
References
23
Case No. 03-04-00586-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2006

Mid-South Telecommunications Company v. Norman K. Best and Phillip W. Faris, Jr.

This case addresses the accrual of a creditor's claim against a debt guarantor. Mid-South Telecommunications Company loaned money to VidiMedix Corporation, with Norman K. Best and Philip W. Faris, Jr. as guarantors. VidiMedix defaulted on December 31, 1999. Mid-South sued Best and Faris in May 2004 for breach of guaranty. Best and Faris argued the four-year statute of limitations barred the claim, contending it accrued on the default date. The district court agreed, granting summary judgment for Best and Faris. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Mid-South's claim against the guarantors accrued on December 31, 1999, when VidiMedix defaulted, thus the claims were time-barred.

Contract LawGuarantyStatute of LimitationsDebt DefaultBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCreditor ClaimsPromissory NoteTexas Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lobosco v. Best Buy, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Everest National Insurance Company concerning its duty to defend and indemnify Schimenti Construction Corporation, Best Buy, Inc., and Dame Contracting, Inc., in a personal injury action. The underlying plaintiff, an employee of Dame, sustained injuries on a construction site. Schimenti and Best Buy, a general contractor and property owner, were allegedly not named as additional insureds on Dame's policy with Everest, despite a contractual requirement. All parties involved failed to provide timely notice of the accident to Everest. The Supreme Court initially denied Everest's cross-motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court granted Everest's cross-motion, ruling that the failure to provide timely notice vitiated the insurance contract and that the reasons for delay were unreasonable. Consequently, Everest was determined to have no obligation to defend or indemnify the other parties.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyTimely NoticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSubcontractor LiabilityAdditional InsuredsPersonal InjuryLate Notice Defense
References
16
Case No. 01-08-00296-CV; 01-08-00418-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2008

in Re Texas Best Staff Leasing , Inc. D/B/A Alt-Source

Texas Best Staff Leasing, Inc. d/b/a Alt-Source (Alt-Source) sought relief from the trial court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration through an interlocutory appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus. Alt-Source argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to compel. The appellate court determined that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governed the agreement and that Alt-Source had waived its argument under FAA section 5 by failing to present it to the trial court. Additionally, the court found the Texas Arbitration Act (TAA) inapplicable to the case. Consequently, the court dismissed the interlocutory appeal and denied the petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Arbitration ActWaiver DoctrineMandamus ReliefInterlocutory AppealJudicial DiscretionContract EnforceabilityAlternate Arbitrator SelectionDispute Resolution System
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2010

Commissioner of Social Services v. Dimarcus C.

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S.H.

The Onondaga County Department of Social Services filed a motion requesting that reasonable efforts to reunite a child, born in August 2002 and removed from home in February 2003, with his parents were not required. The father had been convicted of a sex offense against a half-sibling, and his parental rights to another half-sibling were terminated. Both parents were found to have neglected, severely abused, and repeatedly abused the subject child. The mother admitted knowing about the sexual abuse but failed to intervene. The court found that the Department met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the parents subjected the child to aggravating circumstances and failed to demonstrate that reunification was in the child's best interests. Consequently, the motion to dispense with reunification efforts was granted.

Child NeglectSevere AbuseRepeated AbuseParental Rights TerminationSexual OffenseAggravated CircumstancesFamily Court ActSocial Services LawReunification EffortsFoster Care
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keyes Helium Company v. Regency Gas Services, L.P.

Keyes Helium Company sued Regency Gas Services for breach of contract, alleging Regency failed to act in good faith by shutting down its Lakin Plant, which supplied crude helium to Keyes. Keyes also claimed unreasonable variation and failure to use best efforts under their crude helium supply contract. The jury found in favor of Regency, concluding it did not breach the contract. The trial court also directed verdicts for Regency on the unreasonable variation and best efforts claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury instruction on good faith, upholding the directed verdict on the unreasonable variation claim, and affirming the directed verdict on the best efforts claim, noting the obligation was not on Regency under this specific contract.

Uniform Commercial CodeOutput contractRequirements contractGood faith obligationBreach of contractDirected verdictJury instructionsCommercial standardsLegitimate business reasonUnreasonable variation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 1995

Gardner v. Best Western International, Inc.

Hilary Gardner sued Best Western International (BWI) after suffering paralyzing injuries in a shallow hotel pool in Cancún, Mexico. She alleged BWI's negligence in quality control inspections for Hotel Playa Blanca. The trial court granted BWI's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Gardner's claims as a third-party beneficiary but reversed and remanded her extracontractual liability claims under specific Quintana Roo Civil Code articles, concluding that Mexican law could provide a cause of action under certain circumstances for negligence.

Summary JudgmentForeign LawMexican Civil CodeExtracontractual LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryNegligenceHotel LiabilityInternational Marketing AssociationQuality Control InspectionSwimming Pool Accident
References
18
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04798
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2019

Matter of Mario WW. v. Kristin XX.

Mario WW. commenced a paternity proceeding seeking to be adjudicated the father of a child born to Kristin XX., who was married to Brad XX. The Family Court initially dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division remitted for a determination on the child's best interests regarding genetic testing. Upon remittal, the Family Court again dismissed the petition, applying the presumption of legitimacy and equitable estoppel, finding that genetic testing was not in the child's best interests. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, emphasizing the child's best interests, the stable family dynamic, and the presumption of legitimacy. The court also upheld a stay-away order of protection against Mario WW. due to his hostile behavior towards the respondents.

Paternity DisputeGenetic TestingBest Interests of ChildPresumption of LegitimacyEquitable EstoppelFamily Court Act Article 5Appellate DivisionOrder of ProtectionChild CustodyMarital Presumption
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoesten v. Best

Plaintiff Raymond J. Hoesten, a former stage manager, sued Constance Best, an AFTRA executive assistant, and AFTRA for defamation and tortious interference after his termination by ABC. Hoesten alleged Best's statements about his workplace conduct led to his dismissal. The court addressed whether some claims were time-barred, if federal labor law preempted state claims, and if actual or common-law malice was proven. The appellate court ruled that claims prior to July 1998 were time-barred, federal law partially preempted state defamation claims, and Hoesten failed to demonstrate malice. Ultimately, the court dismissed the complaint against both Best and AFTRA.

DefamationTortious InterferenceFederal Labor Law PreemptionActual MaliceQualified PrivilegeStatute of LimitationsSingle Publication RuleUnion LiabilityCollective Bargaining AgreementWorkplace Misconduct
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 1,861 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