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. 03-10-00358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2012

Russell H. Fish, III, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Texas Legislative Service, Partnership v. Texas Legislative Service, Partnership Andrew K. Fish And John C. Fish

This case concerns a dispute within the Texas Legislative Service (TLS) partnership, where Russell H. Fish, III, sued his brothers Andrew K. Fish and John C. Fish for alleged breaches of their partnership agreement, fiduciary duties, and intellectual property misappropriation. Russell claimed Andrew and John improperly set their compensation, denied him access to partnership records, and violated terms regarding the sale of their mother's partnership interest. Furthermore, Russell alleged that Andrew competed with TLS by operating similar businesses in other states and misused TLS's trade secrets and software. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Andrew and John on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed most of the trial court's rulings but reversed and remanded the breach of contract claim related to partner compensation, citing a partial limitations bar and a remaining factual dispute regarding waiver.

Partnership AgreementBreach of ContractFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWaiverTrade SecretsCopyright InfringementPartner CompensationAccess to Records
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gulf Shores Council of Co-Owners, Inc. v. Raul Cantu No. 3 Family Ltd. Partnership

The Fourth Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's judgment concerning a dispute between the Gulf Shores Council of Co-Owners, Inc., and the Raul S. Cantu No. 3 Family Limited Partnership. The core issue was the Council's right to levy fees on unit owners who rented outside the designated rent pool and to prohibit the use of independent leasing agents. The trial court had ruled these actions unenforceable and awarded damages for tortious interference. However, the appellate court found that the Council's fees and prohibitions were reasonable and justified under the condominium's Declaration and Bylaws, and that they had a legal right to interfere with the Partnership's contracts. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the damages awarded to the Partnership and rendered judgment in favor of the Council for unpaid assessments and attorney fees.

Condominium LawProperty RightsRental ManagementHomeowners AssociationTortious InterferenceContract LawAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentUnpaid AssessmentsAttorney Fees
References
20
Case No. 16 NY3d 706
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2011

Federal Insurance v. International Business MacHines Corp.

Federal Insurance Company (Federal) sought a declaration that its excess insurance policy did not cover attorneys' fees paid by International Business Machines Corporation and the IBM Personal Pension Plan (collectively, IBM) in a class action lawsuit (*Cooper v IBM Personal Pension Plan*). The *Cooper* action alleged violations of ERISA pertaining to age discrimination. IBM sought reimbursement from Federal after exhausting an underlying Zurich policy. The core dispute revolved around whether the disputed language in Federal's "follow form" policy extended coverage to IBM's actions as a plan settlor, which are not considered fiduciary acts under ERISA. The Supreme Court initially denied Federal's motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to Federal. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the policy's plain language limited coverage to acts of an insured undertaken in its capacity as an ERISA fiduciary, which IBM was not in this instance.

Insurance Policy InterpretationERISAFiduciary DutyExcess InsuranceSummary JudgmentPlan SettlorEmployee Benefit PlansContract LawPolicy CoverageAge Discrimination
References
18
Case No. 14-05-01035-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2006

in Re Autotainment Partners Limited Partnership D/B/A Planet Ford and Worldwide Autotainment Inc.

Relators Autotainment Partners Limited Partnership d/b/a Planet Ford and Worldwide Autotainment, Inc. sought a writ of mandamus against Respondent Judge Sharolyn P. Wood. The relators challenged the judge's denial of their motion to compel arbitration in an underlying suit filed by Solomon Israel, a former employee. Israel, who was injured while working for non-subscriber Planet Ford, had signed an agreement to arbitrate disputes. The appellate court reviewed whether a valid arbitration agreement existed, if Israel's negligence claim fell within its scope, and if the McCarran-Ferguson Act reverse preempted the Federal Arbitration Act. Finding a valid agreement encompassing the dispute and rejecting the reverse preemption argument, the court concluded the trial court abused its discretion. The petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, ordering the trial court to compel arbitration.

MandamusArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActMcCarran-Ferguson ActWorkers' Compensation ActEmployment LawNegligence ClaimContract EnforcementJudicial ReviewTrial Court Discretion
References
12
Case No. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Education Foundation, Dan Parsons, Chris Church, Church Enterprises, Inc., Gary Milleson, Ronald N. McMillan, D' Artagnan Bebel, Mark Goldie, Cha v. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

950 Corbindale, L.P. v. Kotts Capital Holdings Ltd. Partnership

This accelerated interlocutory appeal stems from the denial of a motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. The dispute involves three limited partnerships formed in 2004 for real estate acquisition and management. The partnership agreements contained a broad arbitration clause, but limited arbitrators to awarding "compensatory damages only." Appellees, Kotts Capital Holdings, LP and Kotts Capital Holdings, Inc., sought declaratory relief in district court after an offer to purchase the properties was rejected. Appellants, including 950 Corbindale, L.P. and others, moved to compel arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the agreement's scope. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the court held the arbitration agreements were valid and the dispute, including the request for declaratory relief, was within the scope of arbitration, despite the damages limitation. The court reasoned that "compensatory damages only" modified the type of damages, not the arbitrator's authority to grant other forms of relief. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration.

Arbitration ClausePartnership DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to CompelInterlocutory AppealContract InterpretationScope of ArbitrationCompensatory DamagesAppellate ProcedureWaiver of Rights
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Camhi & Undergarment & Negligee Workers Union, Local 62

The case involves a petitioner's motion to stay arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement. The court reversed a previous order denying the stay and granted the motion. The central issue is whether the arbitration clause extends to the petitioner's individual business operations established after leaving a partnership, rather than to obligations predating the partnership's dissolution. The majority ruled that disputes related to the petitioner's separate business are not subject to the arbitration agreement because the individual business is not represented by the trade association. A dissenting opinion argued that the broad arbitration clause should empower arbitrators to determine the scope, particularly if the union alleges deliberate circumvention of the agreement.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementStay of ArbitrationScope of ArbitrationPartnership DissolutionIndividual LiabilityTrade AssociationJudicial ReviewArbitrabilityContract Interpretation
References
14
Case No. 10-19-00004-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2022

Texas Central Business Lines Corporation v. U.S. Polyco, Inc.

Texas Central Business Lines Corporation (TCB) and U.S. Polyco, Inc. (USP) entered into agreements for the construction of a plant and infrastructure, leading to a dispute over cost responsibilities and contract interpretation. USP sued TCB for breach of contract, and TCB counterclaimed. The trial court partially granted USP's motion for summary judgment on contract interpretation, and a jury subsequently found TCB in material breach, awarding USP substantial damages. On appeal, the Tenth Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment, finding that the trial court erred by interpreting an ambiguous contract provision as a matter of law and by instructing the jury based on that erroneous interpretation. The appellate court concluded that the contract provision was ambiguous, necessitating a remand for a new trial to determine the parties' true intent.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentJury InstructionRailroad Allowance AgreementTransload AgreementInfrastructure ImprovementsAmbiguity in ContractCanons of Construction
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 1998

Fort Worth Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Enserch Corp.

Fort Worth Hotel Limited Partnership (Fort Worth Hilton) appealed a jury verdict in its suit against Ensereh Corporation d/b/a Lone Star Gas Company (Lone Star Gas) following a gas explosion that allegedly damaged its hotel. Fort Worth Hilton contended the jury erred in not finding gross negligence and in awarding zero damages for business interruption and lost income. Lone Star Gas raised cross-points concerning the legal sufficiency of evidence for repair costs and alleged perjury. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding of no gross negligence and found Fort Worth Hilton failed to present sufficient evidence of the reasonableness of repairs. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of Lone Star Gas.

Gas ExplosionHotel DamageNegligenceGross NegligenceDamagesBusiness InterruptionStructural DamageCollateral EstoppelExpert TestimonyEvidentiary Rulings
References
48
Case No. DC-13-04564-L
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

in Re: Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc. and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault and related damages, including mental anguish. Her designated psychologist, Dr. William Flynn, conducted a mental examination. Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc., and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership sought an independent psychological examination of the plaintiff by their expert, Dr. Lisa Clayton. The district court initially denied this motion, and subsequently denied the defendants' joint motion for reconsideration. This mandamus record documents the appellate review of this discovery dispute.

Sexual AssaultMental AnguishPsychological ExaminationDiscovery DisputeForensic PsychologyPremises LiabilityMandamus PetitionCivil ProcedureExpert WitnessTexas Law
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 6,417 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