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. 21-0676
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2024

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case originated from a nuisance suit brought by neighbors against two large poultry farms in Henderson County, Texas, operated by the Huynh family and Sanderson Farms, Inc. The neighbors alleged persistent, offensive odors constituting a nuisance. A jury initially found a temporary nuisance, leading the trial court to issue a permanent injunction that effectively shut down the farms. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the entitlement to permanent injunctive relief, agreeing that harm was imminent and legal remedies inadequate. However, it reversed the trial court's injunction in part, finding it overly broad for completely halting operations and imposing a wide geographic ban, and remanded the case for a more tailored injunction.

Nuisance LawPoultry FarmingEnvironmental RegulationsInjunctive ReliefProperty RightsOdor NuisanceTemporary NuisancePermanent NuisanceBalancing EquitiesJudicial Discretion
References
108
Case No. 13-15-00098-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2015

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The case involves an appeal regarding a trial court's denial of Hudson Insurance Company's motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs, Bruce Gamble Farms, Jim Gamble Farms, and Brian Jones Farms, sued Hudson and CropGuard Group, Inc., alleging overcharged crop insurance premiums for Crop Year 2013. The appellees argue that a valid and conscionable arbitration agreement did not exist, citing non-receipt of the policy, unconscionable terms like a shortened statute of limitations, and the dispute falling outside the arbitration clause's scope as it pertains to policy or procedure interpretation rather than claims for loss. The brief advocates for upholding the trial court's decision.

Crop InsuranceArbitrationContract DisputeUnconscionabilityAppellate ReviewInsurance PremiumsTexas LawFederal Arbitration ActMotion to CompelCivil Procedure
References
36
Case No. No. 10-12-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 05, 2013

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Appellants Leisel Moseley, Brian Dunn, and Janel Dunn appealed a summary judgment favoring Happy Hill Farm Academy/Home and related entities. They claimed wrongful termination, alleging Happy Hill Farm operates as a treatment or mental-health facility under the Texas Health and Safety Code, and contested the applicability of statutory exemptions. The court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Happy Hill Farm is neither a treatment nor a mental-health facility, but a basic child care facility with a school. Furthermore, the court found Happy Hill Farm exempt from former Chapter 242 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, as it operates under the jurisdiction of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, a recognized state agency.

Summary judgmentWrongful terminationTexas Health and Safety CodeMental health facilityTreatment facilityBoarding schoolState agency exemptionEmployment at willRetaliatory dischargeMedical misconduct
References
17
Case No. 03-98-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1999

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Accord Agriculture, Inc. (Accord) initiated a lawsuit against the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), challenging the validity of rules established for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Accord contended that the TNRCC failed to meet the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) reasoned justification requirement and exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating these rules. The trial court invalidated the CAFO rules due to the lack of reasoned justification but dismissed Accord's claims regarding a 'takings' violation and the constitutionality of the Right to Farm Act. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of the CAFO rules and the dismissal of the 'takings' claim. However, it reversed the dismissal of Accord's challenge to the Right to Farm Act, remanding that specific issue for further proceedings.

Administrative Procedure ActReasoned JustificationConcentrated Animal Feeding OperationsEnvironmental RegulationWater QualityAir QualityDeclaratory JudgmentStandingTakings ClaimRight to Farm Act
References
55
Case No. 02-16-00128-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2016

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Midwestern Cattle Marketing, LLC (Relator/Plaintiff) initiated a lawsuit against Tony E. Lyon d/b/a Lyon Farms, Owen Lyon, and Monna Lyon (Defendants) to recover funds lost due to an alleged fraudulent cattle-buying scheme, involving a $5 million bounced check and $3.7 million in unauthorized checks. Northwest Cattle Feeders, L.L.C. and Riley Livestock, Inc. (Intervenors) sought to join the suit, claiming they were also victims of the same scheme and seeking $800,000 in damages related to cattle. Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the intervention, arguing lack of justiciable interest, potential multiplication of issues, and non-essential nature of the intervention, with an alternative request for severance. Intervenors countered that their claims were intrinsically linked to the main lawsuit, involved identical parties and a similar scheme, and that intervention would enhance judicial efficiency and protect their interest in seized cattle. The Court, presided over by Judge John Fostel, ultimately denied Plaintiff's motion to strike the intervention and the alternative motion to sever.

FraudCattle SchemeInterventionMotion to StrikeSeveranceAgencyUnjust EnrichmentConversionBreach of ContractMandamus
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

A group of migrant farm workers filed a civil action against Case Farms of Ohio, claiming violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and state laws. The plaintiffs, recruited from Texas to work in Ohio, alleged misrepresentations regarding employment terms, transportation, and housing conditions. The court found Case Farms liable for numerous AWPA violations, including using an unregistered farm labor contractor, failing to provide written disclosures, providing false information, violating working arrangement terms, failing to comply with housing health and safety codes, and failing to ensure vehicle insurance and inspection for the 1996 plaintiffs. Some 1997 plaintiffs also proved violations related to written disclosures and housing occupancy terms. The court awarded statutory and actual damages to different groups of plaintiffs for these violations, while rejecting most FLSA and state law claims due to insufficient evidence or lack of agency.

Migrant workers' rightsAgricultural employmentWorker Protection ActFair Labor Standards ActWage and hour violationsUnregistered labor contractorSubstandard housingUnsafe transportationFalse promisesJoint employer doctrine
References
71
Case No. No. 11-12-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Alfred Elwess, injured in an auto accident, sought to recover under his underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas and Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Appellees). The Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Elwess failed to obtain permission to settle with the tortfeasor and that his damages were covered by workers' compensation. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Appellees. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence that Elwess's failure to obtain permission materially prejudiced the Appellees' subrogation rights and that his damages were payable under workers' compensation, especially since his employer did not have such coverage. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentUnderinsured Motorist (UIM)Insurance Coverage DisputeSettlement Without Consent ExclusionSubrogation RightsWorkers' Compensation ExclusionMaterial BreachActual PrejudiceAppellate ReviewDe Novo Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case involves an appeal by thirteen migrant seasonal farmworkers (plaintiffs-appellants), who are creditors of defendants-bankrupts Gurda Farms, Inc. and Stanley Gurda. The farmworkers challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that denied their request to proceed in forma pauperis (without payment of fees) in their appeal. The plaintiffs had previously obtained a judgment against the defendants under the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act of 1963 and were prosecuting that action in forma pauperis when the defendants filed for bankruptcy, automatically staying the civil suit. The core legal question is whether 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which allows individuals to proceed in forma pauperis, is applicable to creditors appealing a bankruptcy court's decision, especially given the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Kras. The District Court distinguished this case from Kras, noting the plaintiffs' pre-existing in forma pauperis status and the minimal impact on the bankruptcy system's self-supporting goal. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to prosecute this appeal in forma pauperis.

In Forma PauperisBankruptcy AppealCreditor RightsFarm Labor Contractor Registration ActStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionReferees' Salary ActBankruptcy Fees
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Nancy Ray Caserotti appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of State Farm Insurance Company. The case stemmed from an automobile accident where Nancy, insured by State Farm, was injured by David, also insured by State Farm. Initially, David claimed fault, leading to a $100 settlement check to Nancy, which she later disputed as a full release. Nancy subsequently sued David, leading to a default judgment, then a new trial where State Farm defended David using the release. Nancy then sued State Farm, alleging violations of the DTPA, breach of fiduciary duty, and bad faith. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that State Farm did not owe Nancy, as a third-party claimant under David's policy, a fiduciary duty or a duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Summary JudgmentAutomobile AccidentInsurance LawFiduciary DutyGood Faith and Fair DealingDeceptive Trade Practices ActThird-Party ClaimInsurance ReleaseAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
17
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01944 [226 AD3d 836]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2024

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The plaintiff, Matthew Ragusa, appealed an order denying his cross-motion to amend the complaint to add Drazie's Farm, LLC as a defendant and granting summary judgment to Drazie's Farm II, LLC on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the relation-back doctrine did not apply because Drazie's Farm II, LLC and Drazie's Farm, LLC were separate entities with potentially different defenses, thus not united in interest. Furthermore, Drazie's Farm II, LLC established that it did not own the property where the accident occurred and therefore could not be held liable under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)A-frame ladderfall from heightpremises liabilityrelation-back doctrinesummary judgmentlimited liability companyproperty ownershipadjoining properties
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 716 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