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. 12-20-00082-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2021

Sean Self v. West Cedar Creek Municipal Utility District

Sean Self appealed a take-nothing judgment granted to West Cedar Creek Municipal Utility District, dismissing Self’s suit for damages from sewage flooding his home. Self alleged negligent use of motor-driven equipment, premises defect, unconstitutional taking, non-negligent nuisance, and breach of contract. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Self failed to establish a waiver of governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act for the motor-driven equipment claim, as the damages arose from a broken plastic coupler, not the motor-driven pump. The court also found no evidence to support the premises liability, takings, non-negligent nuisance, or breach of contract claims, thus the District retained immunity.

Governmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActPlea to JurisdictionMotor-Driven EquipmentPremises DefectInverse CondemnationBreach of ContractNon-negligent NuisanceSewage FloodMunicipal Utility District
References
36
Case No. 07-15-00014-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Burton Creek Development, LTD and Burton Creek Management, LLC v. David Cottrell

This appeal concerns a real estate commission dispute where appellants Burton Creek Development, Ltd. and Burton Creek Management, LLC challenge a trial court's decision in favor of appellee David Cottrell, a real estate broker. Cottrell was awarded a $50,015.15 commission and attorney's fees based on an email he claimed constituted a valid contract. The appellants argue that the email did not satisfy the statute of frauds due to insufficient property identification and that the partial performance doctrine does not apply. The brief seeks to reverse and render or reverse and remand the trial court's judgment.

Real EstateCommissionStatute of FraudsPartial PerformanceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract DisputeProperty IdentificationTexas LawBroker Fees
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Creek v. MacLennan

In this worker's compensation case, Michael Creek appealed a partial summary judgment granted to John Scott MacLennan. Creek was injured while working as a carpenter building a log home for MacLennan's personal use. The trial court ruled that Creek's employment was 'casual' under T.C.A. § 50-6-106(2) because MacLennan's primary business was dry cleaning, not home construction, thus exempting him from the Tennessee Worker's Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that building a home for personal use does not establish an employer in the construction business, and therefore Creek was indeed a casual employee not covered by the Act. MacLennan's request for damages due to a frivolous appeal was denied.

Worker's Compensation ActCasual EmployeeSummary JudgmentEmployer's TradePersonal Use ExemptionAppellate ReviewTennessee LawConstruction EmploymentStatutory InterpretationFrivolous Appeal Claim
References
6
Case No. 09-06-399 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2007

Cypress Creek Emergency Medical Services, Inc. v. Steven Cosby and Kristen Lee Cosby, Individually and A/N/F of Brndyn Cosby and Peyton Cosby

Cypress Creek Emergency Medical Services, Inc. appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a lawsuit filed by the Cosbys for injuries sustained by Steven Cosby from an explosive device detonated by a Cypress Creek employee, Eugene H. Williams, Jr. Cypress Creek asserted governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act, arguing it was a governmental unit and the employee was not acting within the scope of employment. The Cosbys argued Cypress Creek was not a governmental unit due to its advanced tactical team performing law enforcement duties affecting its tax-exempt status. The appellate court determined Cypress Creek was a governmental unit and that the Cosbys failed to establish a waiver of immunity because the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment. The trial court's order was reversed, and the Cosbys' claims against Cypress Creek were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Governmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActScope of EmploymentEmergency Medical ServicesPlea to the JurisdictionTax-Exempt StatusAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryExplosive DeviceAdvanced Tactical Team
References
11
Case No. 01-23-00245-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2025

Johnnie Melton and Shelley Melton v. Big Creek Construction, Ltd. and WFMM, LLC

Appellants Johnnie and Shelley Melton sued Appellees Big Creek Construction, Ltd. and WFMM, LLC for negligence after Johnnie Melton was severely injured in a head-on vehicle collision with Tomas Treto-Trinidad, an employee of Big Creek. The Meltons brought claims for direct liability (negligence, negligent entrustment, negligent supervision or control, negligent training, and gross negligence) and vicarious liability. The central issue was whether Trinidad was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the collision, invoking the 'coming and going rule' and its 'special mission exception.' Big Creek and WFMM moved for summary judgment, arguing Trinidad was commuting and had violated company policy by using a company trailer and fuel card for personal travel while intoxicated. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Big Creek and WFMM. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Trinidad was commuting and not acting in the course and scope of his employment, and the 'special mission exception' did not apply as his actions were not an assigned duty for the employer's benefit.

Summary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorNegligenceCourse of EmploymentComing and Going RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionAutomobile AccidentDrunk DrivingEmployee Misconduct
References
55
Case No. 03-11-00327-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Cedar Contracting, Inc. and Lands & Leases, Inc. v. Ronald Hernandez and Connie Hernandez

This case involves a lease dispute between Cedar Contracting, Inc. and Lands & Leases, Inc. (Appellants) and Ronald Hernandez and Connie Hernandez (Appellees). Appellants appealed a trial court's summary judgment which declared that Cedar Contracting's assignment of its commercial lease rights and subsequent sublease violated the lease terms with Connie Hernandez. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the lease terminated upon Hernandez's notice of termination and that Cedar Contracting did not have an unrestricted right to assign or sublease the property without the landlord's consent. The court concluded that the phrase 'or its assigns' in the lease did not override the explicit restriction and found no error in the trial court's decision that Hernandez was justified in interfering with the sublease.

Lease DisputeCommercial LeaseAssignment of LeaseSubleaseLandlord ConsentSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationNotice of TerminationTortious InterferenceAttorney's Fees
References
32
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00956
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Cacanoski v. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, Krste Cacanoski, was injured after falling through a skylight during asbestos removal work for 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC. He commenced an action against 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, subsequently initiated a third-party action against Cacanoski's employer, Superior Abatement, Inc., seeking contractual indemnification under a subcontract executed after the accident. The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claim and Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order with respect to the plaintiff's motion, granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, finding that the absence of necessary protection was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the parties intended the indemnification provision to apply retroactively.

Labor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAsbestos RemovalFall from heightSky-lightContractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Appellate Division
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. City of Cedar Park

The City of Austin appealed a declaratory judgment that upheld the constitutionality of Senate Bill 421, codified as section 42.024 of the Texas Local Government Code. Austin contended that section 42.024 was an unconstitutional local law that regulated its affairs in violation of article III, section 56 of the Texas Constitution. The court found that several classifications within section 42.024, such as limited-purpose annexation, owning an electric utility, and appropriating water via a transbasin diversion permit, lacked a reasonable basis and did not legitimately distinguish Austin and Cedar Park from other municipalities. The court concluded that section 42.024 was a prohibited local law, reversed the trial court's judgment, and declared the section unconstitutional.

Constitutional ChallengeLocal LawsSpecial LegislationMunicipal BoundariesExtraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)Annexation PracticesLegislative IntentStatutory ConstructionPublic Utility OwnershipWater Rights Permits
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cypress Creek EMS v. Dolcefino

Cypress Creek EMS (CCEMS) sued Wayne Dolcefino and Wayne Dolcefino Consulting (Dolcefino) for conversion and sought a permanent injunction, alleging that confidential documents were accidentally mailed to Dolcefino. Dolcefino denied receiving the documents and sought dismissal and summary judgment on CCEMS's claims, as well as sanctions against CCEMS. The trial court initially granted a Rule 91a dismissal but later vacated it, granting summary judgment for Dolcefino on the conversion and injunction claims, and denying Dolcefino's request for sanctions. On appeal, CCEMS challenged the summary judgment rulings and the attorney's fees awarded, while Dolcefino cross-appealed the denial of sanctions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no evidence of conversion and no abuse of discretion in the trial court's other rulings.

ConversionPermanent InjunctionSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesSanctionsRule 91a DismissalRule 13 SanctionsChapter 10 SanctionsPublic Information ActAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. ADJ1169662 (ANA 0397510)
Regular
Feb 15, 2013

MELANIE TORRES vs. CEDAR CREEK INN, EVEREST NATIONAL, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an order disallowing a lien claim from Superior Med Surgical, Inc. The lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference due to miscalendaring but promptly objected to the disallowance. The Board found the interaction between the Notice of Intent and the Order confusing. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including a hearing on good cause for the absence.

Lien claimPetition for reconsiderationNotice of Intent to Disallow LienWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLien conferenceFailure to appearGood causeObjectionRescind
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 201 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