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. NO. 02-11-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2012

Gregory Earl Reed D/B/A Hit City Records & Tapes v. County of Tarrant, Tarrant County Hospital District, Tarrant County Community College District, City of Forest Hill, and Fort Worth Independent School District

Appellant Gregory Earl Reed d/b/a Hit City Records & Tapes appealed the trial court’s denial of his equitable bill of review. The bill challenged a default judgment for delinquent property taxes, tax lien foreclosure, and a tax-foreclosure sale obtained by Appellees. Reed contended that he and Ronald Reed, the registered agent, were not properly served, and even if served, it was ineffective as Ronald was no longer a partner. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that service upon Ronald was effective because the filed deed showed him as a partner, and there was no indication to Appellees that their notice had failed, thus no due process violation.

Equitable Bill of ReviewDefault JudgmentDelinquent Property TaxesTax Lien ForeclosureTax Foreclosure SaleService of ProcessDue ProcessPartnership LawAd Valorem TaxesSufficiency of Evidence
References
22
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. 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. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust
References
34
Case No. ADJ10261156
Regular
May 24, 2018

RAUL BOMBARDLY vs. CITY OF FRESNO SANITATION DEPT, RISICO CLAIMS MANAGEMENT FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the judge's order for defendant to pay $\$4,812.50$ plus interest to a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The Board found that the record lacked admitted evidence to support the order, including the QME's reports and bills. Defendant argued the dispute should be resolved via Independent Bill Review (IBR) as the QME allegedly double-billed for reviewing records. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to develop the record, acknowledging defendant's argument may have statutory merit.

Panel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEMarcus Vaughn DCRisico Claims ManagementCity of Fresno Sanitation DeptPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Re: Reimbursement of PQME ChargesIndependent Bill ReviewIBRLabor Code section 4622
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emspak v. Conroy

The defendants moved for a further bill of particulars regarding item 30 and requested the entire bill be verified by a union officer. The plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the omission for item 30 was an oversight and agreed to provide it. He argued his self-verification was proper under subdivision 3 of rule 99 of the Rules of Civil Practice, citing the plaintiff's absence from the county, and claimed defendants waived objection by not returning the bill within 24 hours. The court clarified that Rules 10 and 11 do not apply to verification. While an attorney can verify a bill of particulars under rule 117, the court ruled that merely stating the party is out of county is insufficient; the attorney must also detail the basis of their knowledge, especially given a prior order requiring an oath for inability to furnish particulars. The motion for a further bill was granted.

Bill of particularsVerificationAttorney verificationRules of Civil PracticeWaiverMotionCourt procedurePleadingSufficiency of verification
References
3
Case No. 13-09-00128-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

Petroleum Solutions, Inc. v. Bill Head D/B/A Bill Head Enterprises and Titeflex Corporation

The case involves an appeal by Petroleum Solutions, Inc. (PSI) against Bill Head d/b/a Bill Head Enterprises (Head) and Titeflex, Inc., regarding a jury verdict stemming from a significant diesel fuel leak at Head's truck stop. PSI challenged trial court sanctions for spoliation of evidence, and findings related to Head's claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract, as well as Titeflex's indemnification claims. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Head and Titeflex, finding sufficient evidence for PSI's breach of duties and product liability. However, the court reversed and remanded for a recalculation of prejudgment interest.

Diesel leakUnderground storage tankEnvironmental regulationsSpoliation of evidenceFiduciary dutyBreach of contractFraudIndemnificationProduct liabilityAttorney's fees
References
153
Case No. 11-08-00110-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Great Western Drilling, Limited v. Bill Alexander

Great Western Drilling, Limited, appealed a take-nothing verdict in its suit against attorney Bill Alexander. Great Western claimed Alexander conspired with his client, Marilyn Paschal, to convert insurance proceeds that Great Western asserted were its equitable property, purchased with embezzled funds. The case stemmed from an earlier suit where Great Western sued Paschal for embezzlement and sought a constructive trust on the proceeds. The trial court severed claims against Alexander. At trial, the jury found that Alexander did not have notice that Great Western owned the insurance proceeds, leading to a verdict in Alexander's favor. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding the jury's lack of notice finding was not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, and any error regarding expert testimony was not reversible. Alexander's cross-appeal for sanctions was also denied.

ConversionInsurance ProceedsAttorney LiabilityFraudEmbezzlementNoticeJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceExpert TestimonyAppellate Review
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Police v. Charles Q.

A State Trooper, acquitted of criminal charges, had his criminal records sealed. His employer, the State Police (petitioner), subsequently sought to unseal these records for use in a disciplinary proceeding. The County Court initially granted the application to unseal. On appeal, the court reversed the County Court's order, ruling that the State Police, when conducting a disciplinary proceeding against one of its employees, is not acting as a 'law enforcement agency' under CPL 160.50 (1) (d) (ii) and thus has no statutory right to access sealed records. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the 'compelling demonstration' required for exercising the court's inherent power to unseal records, as it did not demonstrate that other investigative avenues had been exhausted or were unavailable. Consequently, the application to unseal the records was denied.

Sealed recordsCriminal Procedure Law 160.50Disciplinary proceedingState TrooperPublic employerLaw enforcement agencyInherent court powerUnsealing recordsAppellate reviewAdministrative determination
References
6
Case No. 04-07-00859-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2009

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. Bill Hibdon

This case concerns an appeal regarding a workers' compensation claim where Pacific Employers Insurance Company (Pacific) contested the compensability of an injury claimed by Bill Hibdon. The core issue was whether Pacific had waived its right to contest compensability by allegedly failing to timely send notice of refusal to pay benefits to Hibdon, as required by the version of Texas Labor Code § 409.021(a) in effect at the time. The trial court affirmed an appeals panel decision, concluding Pacific had waived its right due to Hibdon's non-receipt of timely notice. However, citing Sw. Bell Tel. v. Mitchell, the appellate court determined that failure to send or receive notice within the statutory seven-day period does not constitute a waiver of the insurer's right to contest compensability. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Pacific, holding it did not waive its right.

Workers' CompensationWaiverInsurance CarrierNotice of RefusalCompensabilityTexas Labor CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentReversal
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 5,593 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