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. 2-04-142-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2005

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case concerns an interlocutory appeal by IAC, Ltd., et al. against a temporary injunction granted to Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. The injunction prevented appellants from using Bell's trade secrets related to 206B and OH-58 helicopter blades. Appellants challenged the injunction's validity, specificity, a witness exclusion, and the bond amount. The Court of Appeals found that Bell demonstrated a probable right to recovery on its trade secret misappropriation claim and that an irreparable injury would occur without the injunction. The court also determined the injunction was sufficiently specific, the exclusion of witness testimony was not an abuse of discretion, and the bond amount was within the trial court's discretion. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting the temporary injunction.

Trade SecretsTemporary InjunctionInterlocutory AppealMisappropriationHelicopter ManufacturingAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionIrreparable HarmTexas Court of AppealsIntellectual Property
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The Louis Dreyfus Corporation faced corporate excise tax deficiencies from the Tennessee Commissioner of Revenue, who sought to tax the investment earnings of its Bond Trading Group by arguing it was part of a unitary business with its subsidiary, Allenberg Cotton Company, in Tennessee. The corporation disputed this, claiming the Bond Trading Group was a discrete business enterprise. The Chancery Court for Davidson County ruled in favor of the Louis Dreyfus Corporation, ordering a refund after finding the Bond Trading Group's earnings were business income but not part of a unitary business. This appeal by the Commissioner challenged the trial court's conclusion regarding the non-unitary nature of the Bond Trading Group. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was clear and cogent evidence that the Bond Trading Group's activities were not unitary with the corporation's other divisions or Allenberg Cotton Company.

Corporate Excise TaxNondomiciliary CorporationBusiness IncomeInvestment EarningsBond Trading ActivitiesUnitary Business PrincipleApportionment MethodTaxation LawDue Process ClauseCommerce Clause
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The San Antonio Building and Construction Trades Council (SABTC) and individual representatives challenged the City of San Antonio regarding prevailing wage requirements for construction workers on a convention center hotel project. SABTC argued that Chapter 2258 of the Texas Government Code mandated prevailing wages, but the trial court denied this, finding that despite being a 'public work', no 'public funds' were used for its construction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It determined that public funds pledged as security for revenue bonds, or the bonds themselves, did not constitute public funds used for the 'construction' of the project under the relevant statute.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic WorksPublic FundsAssociational StandingLabor LawDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Government CodeRevenue BondsHotel Occupancy TaxStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 1989

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Plaintiff Edmundo S. Marroquin was injured on November 8, 1985, while cleaning a cargo tank aboard the S.S. Washington Trader on the high seas. Marroquin was employed by third-party defendant Stevens Technical Services and the vessel was owned by defendant and third-party plaintiff American Trading Transportation Company. Marroquin initially sued American Trading for negligence and later added a cause of action for unseaworthiness. American Trading then instituted a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Stevens. Stevens moved for summary judgment, arguing that Marroquin's unseaworthiness claim was barred by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), which would also dismiss American Trading's third-party action. The court denied Stevens' motion, finding that Marroquin was not covered by the LHWCA because he was the equivalent of a 'member of a crew' working on the high seas, not a land-based worker in port. Additionally, the LHWCA's geographical scope does not extend to injuries on the high seas during a long international voyage. Therefore, Marroquin could maintain his unseaworthiness claim, and American Trading could seek contribution or indemnification from Stevens.

Maritime LawUnseaworthiness ClaimLHWCA InapplicabilityHigh Seas InjurySeaman StatusThird-Party ActionSummary Judgment MotionVessel Cleaning CrewContribution and Indemnification
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Patricia Rockoff purchased a home from AA Builders, LLC, which included a warranty from Bonded Builders Home Warranty Association of Texas (BBWG). After discovering structural defects, Rockoff filed claims against both AA Builders and BBWG, subsequently initiating a lawsuit. Both AA Builders and BBWG moved to compel arbitration based on the warranty's terms, but the trial court denied these motions. On interlocutory appeal, the appellate court reversed, affirming the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement. The court rejected arguments regarding the unconscionability of arbitrator selection and limitations on remedies, but remanded the case for the trial court to determine if the arbitration costs render the agreement substantively unconscionable after an arbitrator is appointed.

Interlocutory AppealArbitrationUnconscionabilityHome WarrantyConstruction DefectsFederal Arbitration ActTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActContract LawProcedural UnconscionabilitySubstantive Unconscionability
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The case involves Plaintiffs Sprint Communications Company L.P., Sprint Nextel Corporation, Boost Worldwide, Inc., and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. (collectively 'Sprint') against Defendants Jasco Trading, Inc., Alan Savdie, YRB Trading Corp., and Yehudah Bodek. Plaintiffs initiated the action alleging various claims including breach of contract, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, stemming from an alleged 'Bulk Handset Trafficking Scheme.' The court considered two primary motions: Plaintiffs' motion to enforce a settlement agreement with the YRB Defendants and the YRB Defendants' motion to stay the case pending arbitration. Applying the Winston factors, the Court determined that no binding settlement agreement was reached, citing an implied reservation of the right not to be bound in the absence of a signed writing, disagreement on a material term, and the nature of such agreements typically requiring formalization. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement. The YRB Defendants' motion to stay for arbitration was also denied, but without prejudice, due to their denial of knowledge regarding the arbitration agreement and insufficient briefing on the merits.

Contract LawSettlement EnforceabilityOral AgreementsWinston FactorsArbitration ClauseMotion to EnforceMotion to StayBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionTrademark Infringement
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves an appeal by Jerry Wardlow, doing business as Armadillo Bail Bonds, a surety, against the State of Texas regarding a criminal bail bond forfeiture. The central issue is whether article 22.16(c)(2) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which delays final judgment against a bond for eighteen months in felony cases, violates the separation of powers doctrine of the Texas Constitution. The trial court had entered a final judgment before the expiration of the eighteen-month period, concluding the statute was unconstitutional. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the legislative imposition of an eighteen-month delay in entering final judgment constitutes an unconstitutional interference with the judiciary's power, which includes the power to enter and execute judgments. The court reasoned that such a delay usurps judicial functions and renders the judicial branch powerless to administer justice without denial or delay.

Bail Bond ForfeitureSeparation of PowersJudicial PowerLegislative InterferenceTexas ConstitutionCode of Criminal ProcedureFinal Judgment DelayAppellate ReviewConstitutional LawJudicial Branch
References
9
Case No. 04-24-00386-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2025

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Edward Santos filed a lawsuit against Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Judy Bond, and Allstate County Mutual Insurance, alleging liability for his injuries being compensated through workers' compensation benefits, thereby limiting liability under other coverages. Texas Mutual and Bond challenged the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction, arguing that the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation (the Division) had exclusive jurisdiction over Santos's claims. The Fourth Court of Appeals found that Santos's claims against Texas Mutual and Bond, predicated on the improper investigation, handling, or settlement of his workers' compensation claim, fell within the Division's exclusive jurisdiction, and he failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Consequently, the Court conditionally granted the petition for a writ of mandamus for Texas Mutual and Bond, directing the trial court to dismiss claims against them. However, the Court denied Allstate's petition, as Santos's claims against Allstate involved a liability claim against a non-workers' compensation carrier, which did not abrogate the Division's exclusive jurisdiction by re-litigating the course and scope of employment question.

MandamusWorkers' CompensationExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesPlea to the JurisdictionInsurance CodeDeceptive Trade Practices ActFraudConspiracyEmployer Liability
References
25
Case No. 18-CV-0361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2018

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Patrick McDonnell and his company, CabbageTech, Corp. d/b/a Coin Drop Markets (CDM), alleging a deceptive and fraudulent virtual currency scheme. The defendants were accused of offering fraudulent trading and investment services related to virtual currency, misappropriating investor funds, and misrepresenting trading advice and future profits. The primary legal questions involved the CFTC's standing to sue and whether virtual currencies are considered commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The court affirmed both questions, finding that virtual currencies function as commodities and that the CFTC has jurisdiction over fraud in underlying spot markets, not just derivatives. Consequently, the court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the CFTC and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding there was a reasonable likelihood of continued CEA violations without the injunction.

Virtual CurrencyBitcoinLitecoinCommodity Exchange ActCFTC JurisdictionFraudMisappropriationPreliminary InjunctionSpot Market RegulationFinancial Technology
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves Bonded Waterproofing Services, Inc. suing its insurance broker, Anderson-Bernard Agency, Inc. and Thomas Bernard (A-B and Bernard), and its insurer, National Indemnity Company (NIC), after NIC disclaimed coverage for a worker's injury. Bonded alleged that A-B and Bernard misrepresented coverage, breached contract, and were negligent in failing to obtain adequate insurance, and that NIC was vicariously liable. The Supreme Court denied motions to dismiss by A-B and Bernard and a summary judgment motion by NIC. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of A-B and Bernard's motions, finding that Bonded sufficiently stated causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract, and that the negligence claim was not time-barred. However, the court found that NIC's motion for summary judgment should have been granted, as A-B and Bernard were not its agents.

Insurance Coverage DisputeBroker NegligenceBreach of ContractNegligent MisrepresentationSummary Judgment MotionVicarious LiabilityAgency RelationshipStatute of LimitationsConflict of LawsNew York Law
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 2,669 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