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. 03-21-00239-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

Star Houston, Inc.// Cross-Appellant,Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC, and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles// Star Houston, Inc., and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

Star Houston, Inc. and Volvo Car USA, LLC appealed a Final Order of the Motor Vehicle Board. The administrative proceeding involved Star protesting Volvo's termination of its franchise and alleging violations of Occupations Code chapter 2301 by Volvo's Dealer Incentive Programs. Star and Volvo petitioned for judicial review, which was subsequently removed to the Court of Appeals. The court rejected the Board's standing challenge against Volvo's cross-appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusions that Volvo's CSI and SSI programs violated Occupations Code sections 2301.467(a)(1) and 2301.468, upholding that they required adherence to unreasonable sales/service standards and treated dealers unfairly. Additionally, the court rejected Star's claims that other incentive programs violated various statutory provisions. Ultimately, the Motor Vehicle Board's Final Order was affirmed.

Texas Court of AppealsMotor Vehicle BoardFranchise TerminationDealer Incentive ProgramsOccupations CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandingSubstantial Evidence RuleCustomer Satisfaction Index (CSI)
References
38
Case No. 348-363561-25
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2025

Pecos Housing Finance Corporation, Pleasanton Housing Finance Corporation, Maverick Housing Finance Corporation, and La Villa Housing Finance Corporation v. City of Arlington

The City of Arlington and City of Fort Worth initiated a lawsuit against several Housing Finance Corporations (HFCs) and Joe Don Bobbitt, the Chief Appraiser of the Tarrant Appraisal District. The cities allege that these HFCs are unlawfully removing properties in Tarrant County from tax appraisal rolls, resulting in significant loss of tax revenue. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of the Texas Housing Finance Corporation Act, with cities arguing that HFCs are operating outside their geographical jurisdictions and for non-low-income housing purposes. The HFCs filed pleas to the jurisdiction and motions to transfer venue. The court denied Pecos HFC's plea to the jurisdiction and granted the temporary injunctions sought by both cities, prohibiting HFCs from further acquisitions or tax exemption requests in Arlington and Fort Worth, and preventing the Chief Appraiser from granting such exemptions. The HFCs are now appealing these interlocutory orders.

Housing Finance Corporation ActTax Exemption DisputeProperty Tax LitigationDeclaratory JudgmentTemporary InjunctionGovernmental ImmunityVenue DisputeAdministrative RemediesLocal Government LawTarrant County
References
0
Case No. 01-15-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2015

in Re TMX Finance of Texas, Inc., TitleMax of Texas, Inc., and TMX Finance LLC

Relators (TMX Finance entities) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to prevent the deposition of Otto Bielss. LoanStar argues that Bielss has unique and superior personal knowledge relevant to the case, specifically concerning illegal marketing tactics involving accessing DMV records to acquire LoanStar's customers. LoanStar asserts Bielss, as the former Senior Vice President of Operations for the Texas market, was aware of these allegations and implemented aggressive growth strategies contributing to the misconduct. The District Court previously denied the Relators' motion, finding Bielss to be a fact witness actively involved in TitleMax's operations. LoanStar requests the Court deny the Relators' Petition and affirm the District Court's decision.

MandamusApex Deposition DoctrineDiscoveryFact WitnessCorporate RepresentativeTexas Civil ProcedureIllegal MarketingDMV RecordsLoanStarTitleMax
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06033
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

Matter of Bernal v. New York Apple Car Serv.

Claimant's spouse, a cab driver dispatched by New York Apple Car Service (NYACS), was fatally stabbed while working. Claimant filed for workers' compensation death benefits. NYACS, a member of the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF), disputed liability, contending the decedent was a black car operator, making the New York Black Car Operator's Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF) responsible. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision that the decedent was an independent livery driver, holding the ILDBF carrier liable. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, rejecting the argument that the vehicle's affiliation with the NYBCOICF was determinative and relying on precedent set in _Matter of Cisnero v Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund_.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsIndependent Livery DriverBlack Car OperatorFund LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewDispatch ServiceEmployer ResponsibilityVehicle Affiliation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1992

Claim of Le Fevre v. Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc.

This is an appeal from a Worker's Compensation Board decision finding an employer-employee relationship between a claimant and Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc. The claimant, a franchisee of Tel-A-Car's two-way radio dispatch transportation service, was required to operate a specific luxury car, lease a radio, charge Tel-A-Car's set fares, and abide by strict operational rules and a dress code. Despite some freedom in work hours, the Board based its determination of an employer-employee relationship on Tel-A-Car's significant control over car type, radio leasing, fare setting, and dispatching. The appellate court found these incidents of control sufficient to support the Board's determination. Furthermore, the court affirmed the decision and declined to consider a new argument regarding the State Franchise Act, as it was not raised before the Board.

Employer-employee relationshipWorkers' Compensation LawFranchise agreementControl testAppellate procedureFactual issueScope of employmentTransportation industryNew York lawGeneral Business Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ward

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas denied a debtor's motion to reconsider an order denying her request to incur new debt for a used car. Debtor Chinique Ward sought to purchase a vehicle with a 20.25% interest rate from Reid’s Auto Connection, a dealership known for targeting bankruptcy debtors, after her original car was repossessed. The court found the proposed financing unreasonable and not in the debtor's best interest, especially given the dealership had provided the car and paid the debtor's attorney fees without prior court approval. The judge ordered the unwinding of the transaction, mandating the return of payments and the car, and highlighted increased scrutiny for future post-petition borrowing requests due to concerns over predatory practices. This decision underscores the court's role as a gatekeeper for chapter 13 debtors' post-confirmation financial activities, particularly regarding significant debt incurrence.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyPost-Petition DebtCar FinancingMotion to Incur DebtReconsideration DenialHigh Interest RatesPredatory LendingAttorney Fee DisclosureUnwinding TransactionDebtor's Rehabilitation
References
10
Case No. 13-14-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2015

Alamo Home Finance, Inc. and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. v. Mario Duran and Maria Duran

This case involves an appeal from the 92nd District Court of Cameron County, Texas, regarding the denial of motions for new trial to vacate no-answer and post-answer default judgments entered against Alamo Home Finance, Inc. and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. in favor of Mario and Maria Duran. The Durans had sued Gonzalez for breach of contract, negligence, and DTPA violations related to a loan for property taxes and alleged failure to purchase insurance, later adding Alamo Home Finance as a defendant. Appellants argued for a new trial based on strict non-compliance with rules of service for Alamo and lack of proper notice of trial settings for Gonzalez. Additionally, both appellants contended they met the Craddock test requirements for setting aside a default judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the motions for new trial, finding that Alamo was not served in strict compliance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Gonzalez did not receive appropriate notice of trial settings, and both parties satisfied the Craddock equitable factors. The court also denied both parties' motions for appellate sanctions. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialStrict ComplianceService of ProcessDue ProcessCraddock TestAppellate SanctionsBreach of ContractNegligenceTexas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plasma Fab, LLC and Russell McCann v. BankDirect Capital Finance, LLC, a Subsidiary of Texas Capital Bank, N.A. And Scottsdale Insurance Company

Plasma Fab appealed a summary judgment granted to BankDirect and Scottsdale Insurance, disputing the effectiveness of an insurance policy cancellation. Plasma Fab's general liability policy, financed by BankDirect, was cancelled for non-payment prior to a fire loss. The appellate court found BankDirect failed to strictly comply with statutory notice requirements under its power of attorney and its liability limitation clause was unenforceable, thus reversing summary judgment against BankDirect on breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for Scottsdale, ruling that the insurer was not obligated to verify the premium finance company's statutory compliance for cancellation and the policy was effectively cancelled before the fire, and not reinstated. The case was affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

Insurance LawPolicy CancellationPremium FinancePower of AttorneySummary Judgment AppealBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyDeceptive Trade PracticesNegligent MisrepresentationFair Notice Doctrine
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2013

Finance Commission v. Norwood

Justice Johnson's dissenting opinion argues that the homeowners lacked standing to challenge the Finance and Credit Union Commissions' interpretations of home equity lending provisions. The dissent contends that the homeowners failed to allege concrete, particularized injury, asserting that a "prospective interest" in home equity loans is insufficient for standing. Justice Johnson criticizes the Court for issuing an advisory opinion and suggests that the case should be remanded to the trial court to allow the homeowners to replead and demonstrate actual or imminent injury and establish subject-matter jurisdiction, rather than ruling on the merits without proper jurisdictional grounds.

StandingJurisdictionAdvisory OpinionsDeclaratory Judgments ActAdministrative Procedures ActHome Equity LoansConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersJusticiabilityPleading Requirements
References
43
Case No. 532689
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Monica Patricia Hidalgo Bernal (Poncefarfan, (dec'd) Otto)

Monica Patricia Hidalgo Bernal filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits after her spouse, a cab driver, was fatally stabbed while dispatched by New York Apple Car Service (NYACS). NYACS, a member of the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF), controverted the claim, contending the decedent was a black car operator, thus making the New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF) liable. The Workers' Compensation Board found the decedent to be an independent livery driver, holding NYACS and its ILDBF carrier responsible. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, referencing Matter of Cisnero v Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund, and reiterated that the vehicle's affiliation with NYBCOICF does not negate liability when the dispatch originated from an independent livery base.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsIndependent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF)New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF)Livery DriverBlack Car OperatorStatutory InterpretationExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 780 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