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. 01-04-00096-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2006

Heritage Housing Development, Inc., F/K/A Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. Heritage Geriatric Housing Development Viii, Inc. v. Velma Carr, as Heir at Law and Representative of the Estate of Raymond Carr

Velma Carr brought a survival action against Heritage Geriatric Housing Development VIII, Inc. d/b/a Heritage Sam Houston Gardens ("Houston Gardens") and its parent corporation, Heritage Housing Development, Inc. f/k/a Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. ("HHD"), for negligent nursing home care of her deceased husband, Raymond Carr. A jury found both corporate entities and employees negligent. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against HHD, finding legally insufficient evidence to support vicarious liability against the parent corporation because it did not control the details of patient care. However, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the negligence claim against Houston Gardens. Due to the potential impact of HHD's inclusion on the jury's apportionment of liability and damages, the case was remanded for a new trial on the negligence claim against Houston Gardens.

Nursing Home NegligenceVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceParent Company LiabilityCorporate ControlNegligent CareTexas Court of AppealsRemand for New TrialMedical Malpractice
References
22
Case No. M2000-00547-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2001

Mary Louise Goodman Case v. Billy Ray Case

This is a divorce case involving Mary Louise Goodman Case (Wife) and Billy Ray Case (Husband) after 25 years of marriage. The trial court granted a divorce to the Wife on grounds of the Husband's inappropriate marital conduct, divided marital property, but failed to determine the value of the Wife's pension plan, and did not award spousal support to the Husband. The Husband appealed, arguing against the divorce, the property division, and the lack of alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the divorce and the decision not to award alimony but reversed and remanded the case for the trial court to classify, value, and equitably divide the Wife's pension plan as marital property.

DivorceMarital PropertyPension DivisionSpousal SupportAlimonyInappropriate Marital ConductDisability BenefitsEquitable DistributionAppellate ReviewCredibility
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Case No. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp.

This case involves consolidated appeals challenging the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation's (RIOC) approval of the Related/Hudson site plan for Southtown development. Petitioners, Alternative Southtown Design Committee and Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development, argued RIOC failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and that the plan violated the General Development Plan (GDP). The Supreme Court's judgment, which had dismissed RIRSD's petition as untimely, was modified on appeal, finding the petition timely but denying it on the merits. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Alternative's petition and the denial of RIRA's intervention, concluding that RIOC took the requisite "hard look" at environmental impacts and its decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, the court found petitioners lacked standing to challenge the GDP's breach as they were merely incidental beneficiaries.

SEQRAEnvironmental ImpactGeneral Development PlanRoosevelt IslandLand UseUrban DevelopmentSite PlanJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. 01-20-00465-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2020

in Re VCPalmsWestheimer Development LLC & Parawest Community Development LLC

Relators, VC PalmsWestheimer, LLC and Parawest Community Development, LLC, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Judge Daryl Moore to vacate an order denying their motion for leave to designate a responsible third party. The underlying case involves Seyedali Parsafar suing the Relators for negligence, gross negligence, premises liability, and DTPA violations following an assault at an apartment complex. The Relators sought to designate Jaeylen Deshawn Turner or an unknown individual (John Doe) as a responsible third party. The trial court denied the motion, believing the disclosure was untimely as it was not made before the statute of limitations ran or in the initial answer. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court abused its discretion, clarifying that disclosure obligations for responsible third parties arise when discovery responses are due, not necessarily before the statute of limitations or in the original answer when no discovery was served, and conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus.

MandamusResponsible Third PartyTimelinessStatute of LimitationsDiscoveryPleading RequirementsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate RemedyTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. 05-16-01206-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2016

In re BCH Development, LLC

This case involves a mandamus petition filed by BCH Development, LLC challenging a trial court's order granting a new trial in a deed restriction case. The underlying dispute concerned BCH's construction of a home and an award of attorney's fees to Barbara Wohlrabe and Lakeview Heights Addition Property Owners’ Association. The jury awarded $290,000 in attorney's fees, but the trial court granted a new trial based on alleged limine order violations, improper jury argument, and insufficiency of evidence. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's reasons and found them not legally appropriate or supported by the record. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to vacate its new trial order and enter judgment on the jury's original verdict.

Mandamus ReviewNew Trial OrderAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentDeed RestrictionsJury VerdictAbuse of DiscretionLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyLimine Orders
References
27
Case No. 10-09-00231-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2010

Jaime Ibarra and Maria Ibarra Torres v. the Hines Land Group, LTD., A.W. Hines, Kelly King Hines, Ricky D. Hines, Individually and D/B/A Hines Development Corporation, Hines Development, LTD., and Hines Development Management, LLC

Jaime Ibarra, an employee of Moss Concrete Construction Co., Inc., was injured when a dirt wall collapsed while he was repairing a leak in a man-made lake at the Pecan Valley Ranch subdivision, developed by The Hines Land Group. Ibarra and Maria Ibarra Torres sued the Hines Appellees, alleging various causes of action including negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring, and negligent undertaking. The trial court granted the Hines Appellees' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the Hines Appellees owed no duty to Ibarra as they did not retain or exercise control over the excavation work, the trench was an open and obvious defect created by the independent contractors, and negligent hiring claims do not apply to independent contractors' employees.

Personal InjurySummary Judgment AppealPremises LiabilityNegligence ClaimsIndependent Contractor LiabilityDuty of CareAppellate Court DecisionTexas Civil ProcedureConstruction Site InjuryGross Negligence
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 24,117 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