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. 12-14-00332-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2014

Robert C. Morris v. Sherri Milligan

Appellant Robert C. Morris filed a civil complaint on January 28, 2009, against Sherri Milligan, Bryan Gordy, and Christy Hoisington, officials at TDCJ-ID, for the unlawful appropriation, destruction, and disposal of his personal property. The suit, designated Cause No. 349-6270 in the 349th District Court of Anderson County, Texas, led to an initial default judgment for Morris on February 4, 2010, which was subsequently set aside. After over five years of litigation, including various motions and pleadings, the trial court dismissed the suit on October 23, 2014. The dismissal was based on Morris's alleged failure to comply with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code regarding previous filings, despite his contention that he had filed the necessary declarations. Morris appeals this dismissal, arguing the trial court abused its discretion and challenging the legality of Chapter 14.

Inmate LitigationPro Se AppealDefault JudgmentDismissal of SuitAbuse of DiscretionCivil Procedure RulesStatutory InterpretationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 14Sovereign ImmunityDue Process
References
53
Case No. 14-00-00173-CV; 14-00-00580-CV (Consolidated)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2002

Nabors Industries, Inc., Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., Nabors Loffland Drilling Co., Nabors Energy Services, Inc. v. Chesapeake Operating Inc. and Chesapeake Energy Corporation

This case consolidates two appeals arising from personal injury claims at a Louisiana drilling site, focusing on the enforceability of oilfield indemnity provisions. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, withdrew a previous opinion and reviewed whether Texas or Louisiana law should apply to these contract clauses. The majority applied Texas law, affirming one trial court's judgment and reversing and remanding another, citing principles of contractual freedom and the domicile of the parties. Dissenting opinions contended that Louisiana law should govern due to the location of the accidents and Louisiana's strong public policy, advocating for a geographical-based analysis to ensure predictability and prevent forum shopping.

Oilfield IndemnityChoice of LawConflict of LawsRestatement (Second) of Conflict of LawsTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeLouisiana Revised StatutesContractual FreedomEn Banc ReviewPersonal InjuryDrilling Contracts
References
51
Case No. 14-14-00306-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2015

Eric L. Baumgart v. State

Applicant Eric L. Baumgart was charged by five indictments with violating the Private Security Act by engaging in the business of a guard on a contractual basis without holding a license. A jury found him guilty, and the judge assessed punishment at two years of community supervision for each offense. The appeal addresses whether Baumgart, who claimed to be a full-time peace officer, was exempt from the licensing requirement under Chapter 1702 of the Texas Occupations Code. The State's appellate brief contends that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, arguing that the contractual basis was for Lopez, not necessarily with Lopez, and that the cordoned-off highway section constituted private property. It also argues that the exceptions in Subchapter N of Chapter 1702 do not need to be negated in the indictment and that any jury charge error regarding the 'law enforcement personnel' provision was harmless.

Criminal lawPrivate Security ActLicensing requirementsPeace officerExemptionsSufficiency of evidenceJury charge errorAppellate procedureTexas lawStatutory interpretation
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. 14 West Garment Factory Corp.

This case concerns a special proceeding initiated by Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, seeking injunctive relief against apparel manufacturers and contractors, 14 West Garment Factory Corp. and Ding and Mag Fashion, Inc. The petitioner alleged that the respondents were producing and selling 'hot goods' in violation of Labor Law articles 6 and 19, pertaining to wage payment and minimum wage. The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order, and the current opinion addresses the petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction and 14 West's cross-motion to dismiss. Justice Alice Schlesinger granted the preliminary injunction and denied the motion to dismiss, affirming the strict liability of manufacturers and contractors under the 'hot goods' law, distinct from retailers who have a good-faith exception. The court emphasized the remedial purpose of the statute to protect workers from underpayment and to prevent illicit profits from illegal labor.

Injunctive ReliefLabor Law ViolationsHot GoodsWage TheftMinimum WageApparel IndustryStrict LiabilityStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawRegulatory Enforcement
References
4
Case No. Consolidated Chapter 13 Cases (e.g., 91-20422 to 97-36152)
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Phillips

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses objections by chapter 13 trustees to the postpetition claims for attorney's fees and expenses filed by William A. Cohn, an attorney representing numerous chapter 13 debtors. Mr. Cohn had routinely filed these claims under 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(2), arguing it served as an alternative to the § 330 procedures for professional compensation. The Court found that § 1305(a)(2) is intended for exigent circumstances where prior trustee approval is impracticable, not for routine legal work, and that Mr. Cohn failed to meet its conditions. It emphasized that § 330, which requires notice, a hearing, and detailed documentation, is the appropriate procedural vehicle for approving attorney's fees to ensure reasonableness and benefit to the debtor. Consequently, the Court disallowed all of Mr. Cohn's postpetition claims filed under § 1305(a)(2), vacated prior administrative orders that had mistakenly allowed these claims, and ordered Mr. Cohn to either file proper § 330(a)(4)(B) applications with full time and expense documentation by July 31, 1998, or disgorge all received postconfirmation fees and expenses by August 14, 1998.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13 ProceedingsAttorney CompensationPostpetition ClaimsFee ApplicationsDisgorgement of FeesProcedural ComplianceProfessional EthicsJudicial ReviewAdministrative Errors
References
15
Case No. 14-05-00111-CV; 14-05-0770-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sonic Systems International, Inc.

Sonic Systems International, Inc. (employer) sued its workers' compensation carrier, Texas Mutual Insurance Co. (TMI), for breach of contract, negligence, and deceptive trade practices after TMI denied coverage for an employee's on-the-job injury in Alabama. Sonic also sought reimbursement under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA) for voluntary payments made to the injured employee, Gary Cochran, a claim that was initially denied by the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission but later granted by a trial court. In Cause No. 14-05-00111-CV, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment in Sonic's favor, affirming the appeals panel's decision that Cochran's election to pursue and recover benefits under Alabama's workers' compensation laws barred Sonic's reimbursement claim as a subclaimant under the TWCA. Concurrently, in Cause No. 14-05-0770-CV, the court conditionally granted Sonic's petition for a writ of mandamus, ruling that the trial court's indefinite abatement of Sonic's contract claims against TMI was an abuse of discretion. The court concluded that continued abatement unnecessarily denied Sonic the opportunity to pursue its remedies and that Sonic lacked an adequate remedy by appeal.

Election of RemediesWorkers' Compensation ReimbursementSubclaimant RightsMandamus ReliefAbatement of LitigationJudicial DiscretionBreach of Insurance ContractDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActExtraterritorial Workers' Compensation
References
26
Case No. 09-03-511 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2004

Dan Thomas v. William Bynum & Billy Reese

Dan Thomas, a Texas prison inmate, filed a lawsuit against William Bynum for slander and verbal abuse, and against Billy Reese for failing to investigate claims, committing fraud, denying disciplinary proceeding access, and imposing punitive restrictions. Thomas sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages, attempting to proceed in forma pauperis. The trial court initially granted a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, which was partially reversed and remanded by the Fourth Court of Appeals. Subsequently, the trial court dismissed the case again for Thomas's failure to file a required affidavit detailing prior suits, as mandated by Chapter 14 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code. Thomas appealed this dismissal to the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont, asserting arguments based on res judicata, the law of the case doctrine, lack of prior notice, and an objection to the presence of defense attorneys. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that res judicata and the law of the case did not apply to the Chapter 14 dismissal and that inmates are not entitled to notice prior to a Section 14.003 dismissal.

Inmate LitigationPro SeSummary JudgmentDismissalAffidavit RequirementCivil Practices and Remedies CodeRes JudicataLaw of the CaseAppellate ProcedureTexas Law
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06093 [210 AD3d 417]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2022

Polonia v. 14 Sutton Tenants Corp.

Plaintiff Charles Felix Polonia was injured after tripping on a wooden plank on a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. He filed suit against 14 Sutton Tenants Corporation and Central Construction Management, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Polonia's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss all causes of action against them. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Labor Law claims were inapplicable and that Central Construction Management did not create the dangerous condition or supervise the work. The court determined that Polonia's fall was not due to a height differential or lack of fall protection as required by the cited Labor Law sections.

Construction AccidentSidewalk BridgeLabor LawSummary JudgmentFall ProtectionIndustrial CodeNegligenceSupervisory ControlPremises LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ortiz-Peredo

The Chapter 13 Trustee objected to the Debtors' Chapter 13 plan, arguing they did not meet the "best efforts" test by not including lawsuit settlement proceeds in their disposable income. The Debtors contended the lawsuit proceeds were exempt property and thus not liable for pre-petition debts. The Court reviewed the interplay between exemption provisions (§ 522(c)) and disposable income requirements (§ 1325(b)), distinguishing between majority and minority views on the matter. Following the majority view and *In re Launza*, the Court determined that once settlement proceeds are defined as income and "disposable income" under § 1325(b), they qualify as projected disposable income, irrespective of their exempt status. Consequently, the Court granted the Trustee's Objection, requiring the Debtors to propose a new plan within fourteen days or face dismissal.

BankruptcyChapter 13Disposable IncomeExempt PropertySettlement ProceedsPlan ConfirmationTrustee ObjectionBest Efforts TestSan Antonio DivisionPost-Petition Income
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,706 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