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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Mary Lynne Jeu, a pharmacist, sued Retail Clerk’s Union, Local 455 AFI^CIO, Van Blades, and Retail Clerk’s International Association for slander. The alleged slander occurred when Van Blades, a union employee, accused Jeu of being "paid off" by her employer to speak against unionization during a meeting. A jury initially found in favor of Jeu, awarding damages for medical treatment, injury to character, and punitive damages. However, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, requiring "actual malice" as defined by federal labor law precedents, a stricter standard than the jury's finding of malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that recovery for slander under the trial court's original definition of malice could not be sustained given the requirement of "actual malice" in the context of labor disputes.

SlanderDefamationLabor RelationsUnion ActivitiesActual MaliceReckless DisregardJury Verdict OverturnedJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate AffirmationTexas Civil Appeals
References
6
Case No. 02-13-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2014

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

Justice Anne Gardner dissents from the majority opinion, arguing that the trial court had jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction against the district clerk. The injunction aimed to prevent the clerk from taxing and collecting court costs from indigent appellees who had filed uncontested affidavits of indigence. The dissenting opinion emphasizes that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 allows indigent parties to proceed without paying costs, and an uncontested affidavit of indigence is conclusive. The judge also argues that section 65.023(b) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code does not defeat jurisdiction because the injunction does not attack the validity of the divorce judgments but rather the district clerk's ministerial duty regarding cost taxation. Furthermore, the opinion states that individual motions to retax costs would not be an adequate legal remedy due to the potential for a multiplicity of suits, and the appellees have standing to challenge a systematic policy of the district clerk.

Temporary InjunctionCourt CostsIndigenceRule 145JurisdictionMinisterial DutyFamily LawPro Se LitigantsAccess to JusticeAppellate Court
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The plaintiff employee, Jessie Lee Masters, sought worker's compensation benefits for a 50% permanent partial disability of the body as a whole, attributed to a back injury sustained while lifting bundles on the job in April 1977. The defendant employer appealed the Chancery Court's decree, challenging the finding of an employment-related injury and compliance with notice provisions. Although medical evidence from Dr. Ronald Rosenthal supported the causation and permanency of her chronic lumbosacral strain superimposed on preexisting degenerative arthritis, the Supreme Court determined that Masters failed to provide the employer with sufficient actual knowledge of an injury as required by T.C.A., § 50-1001. The court emphasized that merely requesting a 'bundle boy' due to strenuous work did not constitute proper notice of an injury claim. Consequently, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed, and her suit was dismissed.

Permanent Partial DisabilityBack InjuryNotice of Injury RequirementActual Knowledge DoctrineEmployer ResponsibilityMedical Causation EvidenceDegenerative Arthritis ConditionLumbosacral Strain DiagnosisAppellate Court ReviewTennessee Compensation Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2006

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

In this case, petitioners Land Master and Roswind Farmland Corp. challenged the Town of Montgomery's new Comprehensive Plan and Local Laws 4 and 5, arguing they constituted unlawful exclusionary zoning and violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court, presided over by Judge Joseph G. Owen, granted the petitioners' motion regarding these claims, declaring the local laws null and void. The decision highlighted the Town's failure to adequately consider local and regional affordable housing needs and to undertake a thorough environmental review. While some of the petitioners' other claims were dismissed, they were awarded attorneys' fees. The court ordered the reinstatement of petitioners' land use applications under the prior zoning laws.

Zoning LawExclusionary ZoningAffordable HousingState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Comprehensive PlanLocal LegislationLand Use PlanningMulti-Family HousingTraffic ImpactJudicial Review
References
19
Case No. 80 Civil 4699
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 1982

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiff Oscar L. Wallace sued the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots and its Ex. President Capt. Robert J. Lowen after his application for union membership was denied. He alleged wrongful denial of admission, termination of applicant status, denial of due process, equal protection violations, refusal to refer to job assignments, violation of his right to sue, conspiracy, and racial discrimination. The court dismissed most of his claims, including those based on alleged membership rights and civil rights violations, finding he had no vested right to membership and failed to show state action or a conspiracy. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the claim for breach of fair representation, acknowledging the union's duty to an applicant regarding job referrals.

Union MembershipFair RepresentationDue ProcessCivil RightsFederal JurisdictionMotion to DismissLabor LawConspiracyRacial DiscriminationEmployment Rights
References
38
Case No. 15-25-00201-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2025

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case involves an appeal by WCH Master Community, Inc. (Appellant/Plaintiff) challenging a trial court's order concerning restrictive covenants. The Association denied the Wolfs' (Appellees/Defendants) application to install a 25-foot pole for a security camera, citing violations of aesthetic harmony and design guidelines. The trial court denied the Association's summary judgment motion and partially granted the Wolfs' motion, interpreting the Texas Property Code as broadly prohibiting restrictions on security measures. The Association argues this interpretation is overly expansive, potentially undermining all restrictive covenants, and that their denial was specifically for the pole's placement, not the security camera itself.

Restrictive CovenantsHomeowners AssociationSecurity MeasuresTexas Property CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewArchitectural ControlTexas LawProperty RightsFencing
References
13
Case No. 13-00-578-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2002

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

Tony Bender d/b/a Master Trainer Co. appealed a take-nothing judgment in his suit for breach of contract and fraud against Ruben Moya. Bender alleged Moya failed to obtain building permits for a dog kennel facility, leading to stop-work orders from the City of Corpus Christi. The jury found that Moya did not agree to obtain the permits. Bender contended that the trial court erred by refusing his requested jury instruction, which incorporated an implied covenant for contractors to comply with relevant city codes. The appellate court distinguished the referenced case, noting Bender's knowledge of platting requirements and the lack of evidence that Moya agreed to plat the property. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in refusing the instruction.

Breach of ContractFraudJury InstructionAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionImplied CovenantConstruction ContractBuilding PermitsPlatting RequirementsCity Codes
References
5
Case No. 15-25-00142-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2025

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

The Appellant, Robert Edward Battaile, pro se, filed a motion in the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to supplement the clerk's record with 11 omitted filings from the trial court, asserting these items are crucial for the appeal. The underlying case originates from a petition to contest the 2024 Manor, Texas City Council and Mayoral Election, including claims of election coercion, historic site destruction, civil rights violations, and unconstitutional jail conditions against various state, county, and municipal entities, and private developers. Battaile also raises concerns about improper application of Rule 91a, judicial silence on motions, and requests the appointment of a Special Master and oversight tribunals. He further seeks to waive sovereign immunity for the defendants due to alleged constitutional violations and ultra vires acts.

Election ContestCivil Rights ViolationsPublic Funds MisuseHistoric PreservationMunicipal GovernanceAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessUltra Vires ActsPolice MisconductLand Use and Zoning
References
23
Case No. 680/2025
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This Article 78 special proceeding concerns a challenge by Petitioner Principal Hans-Gaston against the Kings County Clerk's protocol for processing applications to remove actions from lower courts to the Supreme Court. The Petitioner argued that the Clerk improperly required the commencement of a new special proceeding or action for motions made pursuant to CPLR 325(b), which mandates that such applications be made by motion. The Court meticulously analyzed the distinctions between motions and special proceedings, emphasizing that a special proceeding requires explicit statutory authorization, which is absent for CPLR 325(b) motions. The decision concludes that the County Clerk's protocol is improper and contrary to law. Consequently, the Court granted the petition in part, directing the Respondent to accept properly filed CPLR 325(b) motions without compelling the initiation of a new special proceeding or action.

CPLR Article 78MandamusMinisterial DutySpecial ProceedingMotion PracticeCase RemovalCourt JurisdictionCounty Clerk ProtocolCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Case No. W2013-02801-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2015

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

This case involved an appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning the proper heirs of a residuary trust established by William Arch Gaylor. The trial court had adopted a special master's report without independent review and without the clerk providing proper notice of its filing, as required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 53. The appellate court identified several procedural irregularities, including the improper referral of a primary legal issue to a special master and the lack of a transcript of the special master's proceedings. Finding that the trial court failed to comply with Rule 53's mandates for independent review and proper notice to the parties, the Court of Appeals vacated the lower court's order. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural rules.

Probate LawTrusts and EstatesSpecial MasterJudicial ProcedureAppellate PracticeRule 53Vacation of JudgmentRemand for ProceedingsHeirship DisputeEstate Administration
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 396 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