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. WR No. 20,644
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Larson, Paul Allen

Paul Larson, acting pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Error/Bill of Review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Larson alleges errors appearing on the face of the record and extrinsic fraud committed by the State in connection with prior Cause Numbers 449008-C, 449008-D, 465007-C, and 465007-D. He specifically claims the State mislabeled a June 12, 2014, answer as 'Original' and intentionally delayed its delivery. Larson seeks a full review of the Habeas Record, an order for the Harris County District Clerk's Office to provide complete files, and for the Court to grant his Bill of Review and the relief originally sought in his Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Writ of Mandamus.

Writ of ErrorBill of ReviewHabeas CorpusMandamusFraudError on RecordExtrinsic FraudTexas Court of Criminal AppealsPro SeSupervised Release
References
2
Case No. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. 01-02-01008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2003

Landmark Chevrolet, Corp. & Bill Heard Chevrolet, Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, 'the dealerships') against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company ('Universal'). The dealerships were sued in two underlying class-action lawsuits by customers alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud due to being charged a 'Consumer Services Fee' for a worthless coupon book. Universal, the dealerships' insurer, declined to defend them under their Statute and Title E&O (STEO) coverage, which only covered claims arising from violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws. Universal then filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. The trial court granted summary judgment in Universal’s favor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the 'eight-corners rule' and concluding that the underlying petitions did not allege facts indicating violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws, and declined to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-Lending LawsTruth-in-Leasing LawsDeclaratory JudgmentClass Action LawsuitsTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer Services FeeAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2011

Celeste Grynberg and Jack J. Grynberg D/B/A Grynberg Petroleum v. M-I L.L.C.

The Grynbergs appealed a summary judgment that denied their petition for bill of review, seeking to overturn a no-answer default judgment in favor of M-I L.L.C. Their arguments included challenges to personal jurisdiction based on allegedly improper service on non-resident defendants and the contention that a motion for new trial did not constitute a general appearance. The court affirmed the judgment against Jack Grynberg, concluding he made a general appearance, thereby waiving his jurisdictional complaint. However, the court reversed and remanded the judgment against Celeste Grynberg, finding a material fact issue regarding whether she was properly served. The court also affirmed the award of attorneys' fees to M-I L.L.C.

Summary JudgmentBill of ReviewPersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessNonresident DefendantGeneral AppearanceSpecial AppearanceDue ProcessDefault JudgmentMeritorious Defense
References
67
Case No. ADJ7038469
Regular
Sep 17, 2014

AZIZA SAYED vs. GIORGIO ARMANI, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant's petition to appeal an Administrative Director's Independent Bill Review (IBR) determination was dismissed. The Board found the petition premature as it was not first heard by a trial level Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). Additionally, the petition failed to comply with numerous procedural requirements, including proper captioning, verification, service, and stating specific grounds for appeal. Consequently, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition appealing the IBR determination were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Bill ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative DirectorLabor Code section 4603.6MAXIMUS Federal ServicesInc.Lien claimantOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleWCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haddad v. City of Albany

The petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their application, which combined a CPLR article 78 proceeding and an action for declaratory judgment. The application challenged the respondent's denial of a request to rescind waste removal violation bills issued by the Department of General Services (DGS) of the City of Albany. The Supreme Court had found that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that claims regarding preemption of local waste ordinances by state penal law were without merit. During the pendency of the appeal, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) administratively reviewed the violations, reversing some charges and upholding others. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that a violation of the City of Albany's waste code was not a criminal violation under Penal Law § 55.10, and that the petitioner was indeed required to exhaust administrative remedies for their constitutional claims, as these claims implicated specific aspects of the administrative proceeding rather than the administrative scheme itself.

WasteManagementAdministrativeLawMunicipalCodePenalLawExhaustionOfRemediesDeclaratoryJudgmentAppellateReviewEnvironmentalViolationsPublicHealthPropertyMaintenance
References
10
Case No. 02-14-00304-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2015

Barry Nussbaum v. Builders Bank, an Illinois Banking Corporation

This appeal arises from competing summary-judgment motions in a bill-of-review proceeding, focusing on whether a defendant's failure to update a contractually-agreed-to address for service of process constitutes fault or negligence precluding bill-of-review relief. Appellant Barry Nussbaum had guaranteed a loan from Appellee Builders Bank. When the borrower defaulted, Builders Bank sued Nussbaum for breach of the guaranty, obtaining a default judgment when Nussbaum failed to answer. Nussbaum filed a bill-of-review challenging the default judgment, claiming improper service. Builders Bank filed a cross-motion, arguing Nussbaum's own fault contributed to the default. The trial court denied Nussbaum's motion, granted Builders Bank's, and dismissed the bill-of-review. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Nussbaum's failure to update his address, as required by the guaranty, constituted fault or negligence, thereby precluding him from obtaining bill-of-review relief.

Bill of ReviewDefault JudgmentService of ProcessContractual WaiverDue ProcessSummary Judgment ReviewGuaranty AgreementFault and NegligenceAppellate CourtTexas Law
References
40
Case No. 03-02-00089-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2003

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated v. State of Texas Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas And Jose Montemayor, Insurance Commissioner of Texas

Appellants Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated appealed a trial court's judgment concerning the disclosure of certain records under the Public Information Act. The case originated from a request for information made to the Texas Department of Insurance related to appellants' applications for certification as Independent Review Organizations (IROs). The Attorney General had previously ruled that the requested information, including reviewer lists, contracts, and compensation, could not be withheld. Appellants argued that the information was 'confidential by law' and also excepted from disclosure under the commercial or financial information clause of the PIA. The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that appellants failed to meet their burden to prove an exception to disclosure applied.

Public Information ActDisclosure of RecordsIndependent Review OrganizationsConfidentialityCommercial InformationFinancial InformationAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewInjunctive ReliefAdministrative Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Subsequent Injury Fund v. Service Lloyds Insurance Co.

The Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF) appealed a summary judgment dismissing its equitable bill of review against Service Lloyds Insurance Company (Lloyds). Lloyds had sought to dismiss the SIF's bill of review, arguing that a writ of error was an available legal remedy. The trial court agreed, but the appellate court determined that a writ of error was not available to SIF because it was not a party to the underlying workers’ compensation suit between Lloyds and Darrell Tompkins, nor was it in privity with either party. The court found that SIF's bill of review was a proper collateral attack on a void judgment, as SIF was never made a party to the underlying suit. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings on SIF's bill of review.

Workers' CompensationSubsequent Injury FundEquitable Bill of ReviewWrit of ErrorSummary JudgmentVoid JudgmentCollateral AttackParty StatusPrivityVirtual Representation
References
28
Case No. 12-04-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2005

Mitch Alford v. Robert W. Cary, M.D.

Mitch Alford appealed the trial court's grant of a bill of review in favor of Robert W. Cary, M.D. The bill of review had set aside earlier default and final judgments against Cary, granting him a new trial. Alford argued that Cary failed to meet the required elements for a bill of review, specifically by not negating conscious indifference in his failure to answer the original lawsuit. Applying the Craddock standard for setting aside a default judgment, the appellate court found that Cary's affidavit, stating "I do not recall being served," was insufficient summary judgment evidence to establish a lack of conscious indifference. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment granting the bill of review and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Bill of ReviewDefault JudgmentSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureNegligenceConscious IndifferenceTexas Civil ProcedureMeritorious DefenseDue ProcessRemand
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 6,479 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