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. 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. 01-14-00906-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2014

John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC v. the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Inc.

This appeal concerns a judgment for attorneys' fees awarded to the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston (Houston BBB) against John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. John Moore initially filed a lawsuit alleging various torts, and the Houston BBB moved to dismiss under the Anti-SLAPP statute. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the Houston BBB's motion, leading to a jury trial on attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions. The jury found in favor of the Houston BBB, and the trial court entered a judgment consistent with the verdict, dismissing John Moore's claims with prejudice and awarding fees and sanctions. John Moore, as the appellant, argues that the awarded attorneys' fees are not legally sufficient due to inadequate documentation and that a new trial is warranted to consider all of its claims, including antitrust claims, which it contends were improperly severed. The core argument is about the reasonableness and necessity of the fees and the equity of the award given the procedural history.

Attorneys' FeesAnti-SLAPP StatuteAppellate ProcedureCase ConsolidationJudicial DiscretionLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceReasonableness of FeesSanctionsTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeFree Speech Rights
References
18
Case No. 14-18-00062-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2019

Michael Lee Wyrick A/K/A Mike Wyrick and Gregory Michael Ruhnke A/K/A Greg Ruhnke v. Business Bank of Texas, N. A.

This case involves two individual guarantors, Michael Lee Wyrick and Gregory Michael Ruhnke, appealing a trial court's summary judgment that enforced their $3 million promissory note guaranty in favor of Business Bank of Texas, N.A., and dismissed their tort claims. The guarantors argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment due to contract defenses like fraudulent inducement and mutual mistake, and affirmative counterclaims including fraud and tortious interference. The appellate court found the guarantors lacked standing for some counterclaims and failed to raise fact issues for others and their defenses. The court also reviewed a permanent anti-suit injunction issued by the trial court, concluding it was an abuse of discretion as the circumstances did not warrant such extraordinary relief. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the guaranties and counterclaims, but modified it to dissolve the anti-suit injunction.

Guaranty enforcementPromissory noteSummary judgment appealFraudulent inducementNegligent misrepresentationMutual mistakeEquitable estoppelTortious interferenceNegligence claimsGross negligence claims
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Case No. 04-95-00196-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 1996

American Nat. Ins. v. Intern. Bus. MacH.

American National Insurance Company (ANICO) appealed a summary judgment dismissing its tort actions against International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), Image Sciences, Inc., and Thomas Kendra, which were severed from its breach of contract claims. ANICO alleged fraud, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation stemming from two contracts with IBM, claiming misrepresentations led to significant financial losses. The Court of Appeals reviewed the application of the economic loss rule to tort claims arising from a contract. The court reversed the summary judgment concerning ANICO's fraud claims against IBM and Image, specifically for allegations of fraudulent inducement to contract without an intent to perform, arguing such fraud constitutes an independent tort. However, it affirmed the dismissal of ANICO's other tort causes of action, remanding the fraud claims for further proceedings.

Contract LawFraudTort LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEconomic Loss RuleFraudulent InducementTexas Courts of AppealsConflict of LawsJudicial Precedent
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beneficial Personnel Services of Texas, Inc. v. Rey

Ramon Rey, an oil field worker, sued Beneficial Personnel Services of Texas, Inc. (BPS) and Business Staffing, Inc. (BSI) after suffering a back injury. Rey's original employer, White Well Service, transitioned its employees to BPS/BSI, an employee leasing company, with promises of equivalent workers' compensation benefits. However, after Rey's injury, BPS/BSI significantly underpaid his benefits, delayed necessary surgery, and used an unlicensed insurance carrier. The jury found BPS committed fraud and that BPS and BSI operated as a single business enterprise, awarding Rey actual and exemplary damages, along with damages for mental anguish and damage to credit reputation. The trial court affirmed the judgment against both defendants, and this opinion upholds that decision, finding sufficient evidence for fraud, exemplary damages, and mental anguish, and that single business enterprise theory is a valid means of imposing tort liability.

Fraudulent InducementWorkers' Compensation PolicySingle Business Enterprise TheoryEmployee Leasing CompanyExemplary Damages AwardMental Anguish RecoveryCredit Reputation InjuryBreach of Employment ContractCorporate Veil PiercingUnlicensed Insurance Carrier
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2006

Russian Samovar, Inc. v. Transit Worker's Union of America

Plaintiff businesses sought damages for economic injury from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) due to a 2005 transit strike, alleging improper negotiation tactics and an intentional tort. The Supreme Court initially denied MTA's motion to dismiss. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the prerequisite pleading and notice of claim requirements under Public Authorities Law § 1276 (1) and (2). Additionally, the court found no private cause of action against the MTA under the Taylor Law for an unspecified intentional tort related to employer bargaining conduct.

Motion to DismissFailure to State a Cause of ActionNotice of ClaimPleading RequirementsEconomic InjuryTransit StrikeCollective BargainingIntentional TortAppellate ReviewPublic Authorities Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LM Business Associates, Inc. v. State

Defendant appealed a Court of Claims judgment that found them liable to claimants for conversion and negligent misrepresentation. The case stemmed from the seizure of claimants' computers during a fraud investigation into affiliated businesses, which resulted in the owner's conviction, though claimants were never charged. The seized computers, vital for claimants' businesses, were returned over two years later. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that defendant's seizure and retention of the computers were authorized by a valid search warrant, thus not constituting conversion. It further ruled that no 'privity-like relationship' existed between investigators and claimants to support a negligent misrepresentation claim. Lastly, the court dismissed the constitutional tort claim, noting claimants had adequate alternative remedies in other forums.

ConversionNegligent MisrepresentationSearch WarrantSeizure of PropertyState LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstitutional TortFraud InvestigationWorkers' Compensation LawCourt of Claims
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baty v. ProTech Insurance Agency

This case concerns a dispute between an insurance agency, Baty & Associates Insurance Agency, Inc. (BAI), and its shareholder Rick D. Baty, against former officers Connie Suzanne Malliaros and Treva C. Neill, their new company ProTech Insurance Agency, and four insurance companies: Aetna, Hartford, AMS, and Fidelity. The appellants alleged breach of fiduciary duties, wrongful diversion of business, tortious interference with contracts and prospective business relationships, and civil conspiracy. The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's summary judgments, which were largely in favor of the defendants. The court reversed the summary judgment regarding tort claims against Malliaros, Neill, and ProTech, and for Hartford on tortious interference with prospective business relationships, remanding these for further proceedings. However, it affirmed the summary judgments for the other insurance companies on tortious interference with prospective business relationships, and for all insurance companies on claims of tortious interference with existing contracts, inducing breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy, clarifying that the prior settlement and rescission agreement did not release the tort claims.

Insurance LawFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceContract LawCivil ConspiracyRescissionRehearing OpinionEmployment RelationshipBusiness Disparagement
References
65
Showing 1-10 of 2,661 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