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. 07-01-0038-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2002

Harry LeMaire and Barbara LeMaire v. Romeo James Milano A/K/A James McMillian

Harry Lemaire appealed a take-nothing judgment from the 11th District Court of Harris County. Lemaire sued multiple appellees, including Don J. Davis and various law firms, for damages related to the sale of his limited partnership interest, alleging claims such as legal malpractice, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The jury found that Lemaire had released most appellees from his claims and that no attorney-client relationship existed between Lemaire and the Niehaus appellees regarding the partnership operations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling Lemaire's four issues concerning jury instructions, the existence of an attorney-client relationship, and the denial of a constructive trust against the Thorne appellees. The court found no error in the jury charge regarding release consideration or attorney-client relationship definitions, and no abuse of discretion in denying the constructive trust.

Civil ProcedureJury InstructionsRelease AgreementConsiderationAttorney-Client RelationshipLegal MalpracticeBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudLimited PartnershipConstructive Trust
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Attorney General of State of Tex.

This appeal involves Mike M. Perez challenging a trial court's allocation of a workers' compensation settlement to his child support obligations, and Tony Diaz, Perez's former attorney, appealing the trial court's failure to allocate enough proceeds to his contractual claims. The court found that the Assistant Attorney General, who asserted the child support claim, did not properly intervene in the original hearing by failing to file a petition. Consequently, the appellate court sustained Perez's first point of error and modified the judgment to remove the child support bond. The court also affirmed the trial court's implied finding that both Perez and Diaz assented to the abandonment of their attorney-client contract, thus making an award based on the reasonable value of services proper. Diaz's claim for additional attorney's fees for breach of contract was also denied due to a lack of proof of presentment.

Child Support ArrearageWorkers' Compensation SettlementAttorney's Fees DisputeIntervention ProcedurePleading RequirementsDue Process ViolationWaiver of ErrorQuantum MeruitContract AbandonmentAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gardner v. Jacon

Plaintiff, an injured dock worker, sued attorneys Eric P. Von Wiegen, John Powers, and Robert M. Jacon for legal malpractice. The plaintiff alleged the attorneys failed to timely prosecute his maritime claim, resulting in the expiration of the statute of limitations. Defendants Von Wiegen and Powers moved for summary judgment, arguing no attorney-client relationship existed. The Supreme Court denied their motion, finding disputed issues of fact concerning their role and representation. The appellate court affirmed the denial, concluding that evidence suggested an attorney-client relationship may have existed and that questions of fact remained regarding the attorneys' alleged negligence and faulty legal research.

Legal MalpracticeAttorney-Client RelationshipSummary JudgmentNegligenceStatute of LimitationsAppellate PracticeWorkers' CompensationMaritime LawProfessional ResponsibilityFactual Issues
References
8
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03294 [184 AD3d 223]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2020

Matter of Mauser

Marc R. Mauser, an attorney, was publicly censured by the Appellate Division, First Department, for professional misconduct. The Attorney Grievance Committee initiated disciplinary action against him for neglecting a client's personal injury case, failing to communicate for approximately 18 months, and making misrepresentations to the client, mediator, and the Committee regarding the case status and reasons for delays. Mauser also failed to diligently finalize a settlement and disburse funds promptly. The parties reached a joint agreement for discipline by consent, stipulating to violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct, including neglect of a legal matter, failure to promptly comply with client requests for information, failure to act with reasonable diligence, inadequate supervision of staff, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Despite aggravating factors, mitigating factors such as no prior discipline and acceptance of responsibility led to the agreed-upon sanction of public censure, which the Court granted.

Attorney disciplineprofessional misconductneglect of dutyfailure to communicatemisrepresentationpublic censureRules of Professional Conductsettlement delayclient communicationsupervisory failures
References
3
Case No. ADJ8067615
Regular
Apr 15, 2015

Latonia Bowman vs. SARA LEE CORPORATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an attorney's request to be relieved due to irreconcilable differences with his client. The applicant had accused the attorney of misconduct and collusion with the insurance company. Although the applicant later expressed remorse and a desire to be a better client, the Appeals Board found the attorney-client relationship had irrevocably deteriorated. Consequently, the Board granted the attorney's petition and relieved his firm as counsel for the applicant.

Petition for RemovalDismissal of AttorneyIrreconcilable DifferencesAttorney-Client PrivilegeMisconductFraudCollusionBreakdown of RelationshipWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
0
Case No. 13-10-00016-CV, 13-10-00023-CV, 13-10-00059-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Cascos v. Cameron County Attorney

This case consolidates three interlocutory appeals primarily involving a dispute between the Cameron County Commissioners Court and the Cameron County Attorney. Appellants, comprising county officials and attorneys, challenged trial court orders that granted a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction against them, favoring the County Attorney, and denied their plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court conditionally granted the appellants' petition for writ of mandamus, ensuring their right to supersede the temporary injunction during appeal. While dismissing an appeal regarding the temporary restraining orders as moot, the court ultimately dissolved the temporary injunction and reversed the trial court's judgment. The court concluded that the Commissioners Court possesses implied powers to manage county business and employ legal counsel, and the County Attorney does not hold an exclusive right to represent the county in all civil matters, thereby finding the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.

Interlocutory AppealMandamusTemporary InjunctionGovernmental Entity DisputeCounty Attorney DutiesCommissioners Court AuthorityDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory InterpretationRes JudicataMootness Doctrine
References
106
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boring & Tunneling Co. of America, Inc. v. Salazar

This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the defendants (relators) in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. The relators, Boring & Tunneling Company of America, Inc. and Lee Arthur Evans, sought to prevent the discovery of certain documents, claiming they were protected by investigative and attorney-client privileges. The documents included an attorney's letter and file memo, and statements from Lee Arthur Evans and his son, Keith Evans, related to a fatal car accident. The trial court, presided over by Judge Felix Salazar, initially granted a protective order but later rescinded it, ordering the production of the disputed documents. On review, the appellate court determined that the relators failed to prove the applicability of investigative privileges because they did not provide objective evidence that the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation. However, the court found that the attorney-client privilege applied to the attorney's letter to the claims adjuster, but not to the attorney's file memo (due to waiver) or Lee Arthur Evans' statement (due to conflicting evidence regarding the attorney-client relationship at the time). Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted in part, ordering the trial court to rescind its production order only for the attorney's letter to the adjuster, and denied for the other documents.

MandamusDiscoveryAttorney-Client PrivilegeInvestigative PrivilegeWork Product PrivilegePrivileged DocumentsAbuse of DiscretionAnticipation of LitigationPersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle Accident
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

Border Demolition & Environmental, Inc. v. Ernesto Pineda

This appeal concerns a legal malpractice lawsuit filed by Border Demolition & Environmental, Inc. against attorney Ernesto Pineda. Border Demolition alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, claiming Pineda failed to defend them in an underlying wrongful discharge suit despite an alleged implied attorney-client relationship. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Pineda on the breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims, deeming them impermissible fracturing of the legal malpractice claim. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the legal malpractice claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the implied attorney-client relationship and Pineda's duty of care. The case has been remanded for further proceedings on the legal malpractice claim.

Legal MalpracticeAttorney DutyImplied ContractAttorney-Client RelationshipSummary Judgment AppealProfessional NegligenceBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractTexas Court of AppealsEl Paso District
References
66
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07376
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2025

DeCastro v. Capone

Nonparty Michael Gillin appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied his motion to quash a judicial subpoena duces tecum and for a protective order. The underlying case is a medical malpractice action initiated by Manuel DeCastro against David Capone and others, related to treatment at Stony Brook Southampton Hospital. Gillin, as Director of Information Services at the hospital, provided an affidavit regarding electronic medical records in a related Court of Claims action. The defendants then served a subpoena duces tecum on Gillin for emails related to his affidavit, which Gillin sought to quash, asserting attorney-client privilege with the Office of the Attorney General. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that Gillin failed to establish an attorney-client relationship, partly because his employment agreement with StaffCo of Brooklyn, LLC, stated he was not considered a SUNY employee for most purposes, thereby not establishing a relationship with the OAG representing SUNY.

Medical MalpracticeJudicial EstoppelAttorney-Client PrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumEmployer-Employee RelationshipProfessional Employer Organization (PEO)Information ServicesElectronic Medical RecordsAffidavitCourt of Claims
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 6,843 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