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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delta Engineering Corp. v. Warren Petroleum, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal stemming from a suit upon an indemnity contract between Warren Petroleum, Inc. and Delta Engineering Corporation. Mervin O. Hill, an employee of Delta, suffered severe burns at Warren's facility, leading to a lawsuit against Warren. Warren subsequently filed a third-party action against Delta seeking indemnification, and after settling with Hill, proceeded to trial against Delta. The trial court found Delta negligent and entered judgment for Warren. Delta appealed, contending it was exempt from liability due to Warren's alleged concurrent negligence, but the appellate court affirmed, ruling that contributory negligence is an affirmative defense that Delta failed to plead or prove.

indemnity contractworkers' compensationaffirmative defensecontributory negligenceburden of proofcontract lawtort lawTexas lawappellate reviewsettlement
References
16
Case No. 05-18-00168-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2018

Warren Gattenby v. TIB-The Independent Bankersbank

Warren Gattenby, the Appellant, filed an appeal against a default judgment rendered in favor of TIB-The Independent Bank, the Appellee, by the 193rd District Court of Dallas County, Texas. The trial court's decision, presided over by Judge Carl Ginsberg, also denied Gattenby's motion for a new trial, which sought to vacate the default judgment in a breach of contract case. Gattenby asserts that his failure to file an answer was accidental, not intentional, and he possesses meritorious defenses regarding TIB's standing to sue and the calculation of damages, including attorney's fees. He argues that granting a new trial would not prejudice TIB, and therefore the default judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for trial.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAppellate ProcedureCraddock TestMeritorious DefenseConscious IndifferenceAbuse of DiscretionAttorney's FeesStandingBreach of Contract
References
45
Case No. 12-09-00256-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2010

in the Estate of Ernest H. Warren

Beverly Ann Corey and Stephen Leonard Warren appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Claude Michael Rightmire in their contest of Ernest H. Warren's Last Will and Testament. The appellants argued that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding Ernest's testamentary capacity and Martha Jo Warren's undue influence. The appellate court determined that the trial court improperly granted a no-evidence summary judgment on the issue of testamentary capacity, but properly granted summary judgment on undue influence. The court modified the judgment to reflect a traditional summary judgment on testamentary capacity and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Estate LawWill ContestSummary JudgmentTestamentary CapacityUndue InfluenceAppellate ReviewProbate LawTexas Court of AppealsEvidentiary RulingsDe Novo Review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Warren

Jackie Warren, an Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc. manager, sued Allsup for negligence, alleging personal injuries sustained while unloading delivery trucks without adequate assistance or safety equipment. Allsup, a non-subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation, faced claims under Texas Labor Code section 406.033(d) for failing to provide a safe workplace, proper training, or necessary equipment. Despite a jury finding both parties negligent and awarding damages to Warren, the appellate court reversed the judgment. The court found insufficient evidence to prove Allsup's negligence, specifically noting that Warren did not establish a breach of duty regarding assistance, training, or the provision of a back brace/safety belt or loading dock. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and rendered, with Warren taking nothing from her action against Allsup.

NegligencePersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityUnsafe WorkplaceFailure to TrainLack of AssistanceDuty of CareProximate CauseContributory NegligenceAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 11-03-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2005

Ray Warren, M.D. and Texas Medical Images, Inc. v. KPH-Consolidation, Inc., D/B/A Columbia Kingwood Medical Center

Ray Warren, M.D. and Texas Medical Images, Inc. (Warren) appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to KPH-Consolidation, Inc. d/b/a Columbia Kingwood Medical Center (Kingwood). The dispute arose from Warren's failure to pay rent on two lease agreements, leading Kingwood to sue for breach of contract. The trial court granted Kingwood's motion for summary judgment and ruled against Warren on his counterclaim regarding a breach of an Expense Sharing Agreement and breach of warranty. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Kingwood had proven its breach-of-contract claim and that Warren's counterclaim failed as a matter of law, partly due to an 'as is' clause in the Equipment Lease. The appellate court also upheld the denial of Warren's motion for a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion.

summary judgmentbreach of contractlease agreementequipment leasecounterclaimbreach of warranty"as is" clauseappellate reviewabuse of discretionTexas law
References
8
Case No. 2017-07-0811
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2019

Warren, Edward v. The Pictsweet Co.

Edward Warren, an employee, sought increased and/or extraordinary benefits after settling his initial workers' compensation claim for a work-related back injury. The employer, The Pictsweet Co., moved for summary judgment, arguing Warren failed to show it would be inequitable to limit his benefits to the original award, particularly as he had not sought new employment after termination. The trial court denied the employer's motion, concluding that the employer did not negate an essential element of Warren's claim and that failure to seek employment is merely one factor in assessing vocational ability. The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, emphasizing that the extent of vocational disability is a question of fact and that failure to seek employment is not an automatic bar to benefits. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryLumbar FusionPermanent Partial DisabilitySummary JudgmentIncreased BenefitsExtraordinary BenefitsVocational DisabilityEmployment SearchMedical Treatment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2005

Warren v. International Business MacHines Corp.

Michael Warren, a U.S. Army Reserve member, sued IBM for employment discrimination after his termination shortly after returning from a training mission. He alleged discrimination based on his military service, violating USERRA and New York Military Law. IBM moved for summary judgment, asserting Warren was fired for making a death threat and violating a zero-tolerance policy. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine IBM's stated reason was pretextual and that Warren's reservist status was a motivating factor in his dismissal. Consequently, the court denied IBM's motion for summary judgment on the core discrimination claims (§ 4311 and § 317 ¶ 4) but granted it for the reemployment claims (§ 4312 and § 317 ¶ 1) and the § 4316 claim, interpreting "period of service" as consecutive days.

Employment DiscriminationMilitary Service DiscriminationUSERRANew York Military LawSummary JudgmentPretextReservist RightsWrongful TerminationStatutory InterpretationBurden of Proof
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas County Civil Service Commission v. Warren

This appellate opinion addresses an appeal by the Dallas County Civil Service Commission and Dallas County against a judgment in favor of Betty Jean Warren, whose employment termination was upheld by the Commission. The Court of Appeals found two key errors: the Commission erroneously placed the burden of proof on Warren during her hearing, violating her due process rights, and the trial court improperly submitted the "substantial evidence" issue to a jury, which is a question of law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment. The case is remanded with instructions for the trial court to award Warren only attorney's fees related to her due process claim and to send the matter back to the Commission for a new hearing where the burden of proof will correctly rest on the County.

Employment LawDue ProcessBurden of ProofSubstantial Evidence RuleWrongful TerminationCivil Service CommissionPublic EmployeeAppellate ReviewRemandAttorneys' Fees
References
14
Case No. E2014-02205-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2015

In re Estate of Warren Elrod

This case from the Tennessee Court of Appeals involves the estate of Warren Elrod and a dispute over the beneficiaries of an individual retirement account (IRA). The decedent's wife, the primary beneficiary, predeceased him, and the IRA document stipulated distribution to his "children." Warren Elrod's biological son, Gregory Lynn Elrod, argued he was the sole heir, while his two stepchildren, Sherry Diane Souder and Terry Ray Palmer, contended they should also be considered "children" for the IRA's purposes. The probate court found the term "children" to be ambiguous within the IRA agreement and, referencing Elrod's will which treated all three individuals equally, ruled that the stepchildren were intended beneficiaries. The probate court's decision, which ordered equal distribution of the IRA proceeds among Gregory, Sherry, and Terry, was subsequently appealed by Gregory. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's finding, agreeing that the term was ambiguous and that the decedent's intent supported including the stepchildren as beneficiaries.

Estate LawProbateIRA BeneficiaryWill InterpretationStepchildren RightsAmbiguous ContractDecedent's IntentAppellate ReviewTennessee LawFamily Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwest Warren, Inc. and Thomas Eugene McCain v. Theresa Crawford

Theresa Crawford obtained a default judgment against Southwest Warren, Inc. and Thomas Eugene McCain following an automobile accident. Southwest Warren and McCain's subsequent motions to extend post-judgment deadlines and for a new trial were initially granted but then rescinded by the trial court. Their final motion for new trial was also denied. On appeal, the Court reviewed the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial under the 'Craddock test,' which requires demonstrating that the failure to answer was not intentional, that a meritorious defense exists, and that a new trial would not prejudice the plaintiff. The Court found that Southwest Warren and McCain satisfied all three elements, noting the mistaken belief regarding insurance notification and their offer to reimburse attorney's fees. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial and a hearing on Crawford's reasonable attorney's fees.

Default JudgmentNew Trial MotionPost-Judgment DeadlinesPlenary PowerCraddock TestMeritorious DefenseConscious IndifferenceAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewAutomobile Accident
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 266 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