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. No. 08-13-00348-CV (TC#12-09-802)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2015

EXLP Leasing LLC and EES Leasing LLC v. Loving County Appraisal District

This ad-valorem tax case concerns the taxation of natural gas pipeline compressor packages. Appellants, EXLP Leasing LLC and EES Leasing LLC, lease these compressor packages. The trial court initially ruled that the packages qualified as heavy equipment but found the taxable situs in Loving County and deemed the statutory formulas for market value and tax (Texas Tax Code Sections 23.1241 and 23.1242) unconstitutional as applied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed the constitutionality of these statutes and the determination of taxable situs. The appellate court reversed the trial court's finding on constitutionality, holding that the statutes are not unconstitutional as applied, and affirmed the trial court's ruling that the taxable situs was indeed in Loving County.

Ad Valorem TaxHeavy EquipmentTaxation LawMarket Value AssessmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawTaxable SitusTexas Tax CodeAppraisal DistrictProperty Tax
References
16
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. 13-09-00213-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2010

Unique Staff Leasing, LLC and Unique Staff Leasing I, Ltd. v. Richard Onder

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in a breach of contract dispute between Unique Staff Leasing, LLC, and Unique Staff Leasing I, Ltd. (Appellants) and Richard Onder (Appellee). The core of the dispute was an 'Independent Contractor and Commission Agreement' and prior oral agreements regarding commission payments. Unique argued that the agreements were unenforceable due to the statute of frauds and that Onder committed a prior material breach. The court rejected Unique's arguments, finding that the written agreement was not subject to the statute of frauds as its terms allowed performance within one year and that the jury's implicit finding of no material breach by Onder was reasonable. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, as modified, which awarded Onder $52,025.11 in lost commissions and additional attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractStatute of FraudsElectronic AgreementIndependent ContractorCommission AgreementJury VerdictLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyContract InterpretationOral Agreement
References
73
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

EXLP Leasing, LLC v. Galveston Cent. Appraisal Dist.

The case concerns a dispute between EXLP Leasing, LLC (EXLP) and the Galveston County appraisal district regarding the constitutional validity of a statutory formula for taxing leased natural-gas compressors and the proper taxable situs for this equipment. Galveston County challenged the Texas Tax Code provisions, arguing they undervalued the compressors at a "minute fraction" of their market value, violating constitutional requirements for "equal and uniform" taxation. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the county failed to rebut the strong presumption of constitutionality, clarifying that the legislature is not constitutionally mandated to base property valuation solely on market value. Furthermore, the Court determined that Washington County, where EXLP maintains its inventory and business operations, is the correct taxable situs, establishing a comprehensive statutory scheme that supersedes general situs rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered a decision against Galveston County on both issues.

Property TaxTexas Tax CodeConstitutional LawValuation MethodTaxable SitusHeavy EquipmentNatural Gas CompressorsLegislative DiscretionEqual and Uniform TaxationMarket Value
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Regent Leasing Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Roberto Cruz commenced an action against Regent Leasing Limited Partnership for personal injuries sustained during a slip and fall. Cruz, a superintendent, was an employee of Mid-State Management Corp., hired by Regent Leasing to manage the property. Defendant Regent Leasing moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits precluded the action, suggesting plaintiff should be deemed their employee. The court denied the motion, finding no employer-employee or co-employer relationship between Cruz and Regent Leasing. The decision clarified that merely hiring an employer to manage premises does not establish an employer-employee relationship within the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Slip and FallPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCo-EmployerManaging AgentLandowner LiabilityPremises Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance

This case involves a dispute between two insurance companies, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (excess insurer) and Commercial Union Insurance Company (primary insurer), concerning liability for an injury claim. Michael Jutt, an employee of Minuteman Press International, Inc., was injured while on a Minuteman-owned boat. Commercial Union, the primary insurer, denied coverage and refused to defend Minuteman, leading Hartford, the excess insurer, to provide defense and settle Jutt's claim for $135,000. Hartford subsequently sued Commercial Union for breach of fiduciary duty. The District Court affirmed Hartford's standing to sue, recognizing a direct fiduciary duty owed by a primary insurer to an excess insurer, and found that the "paid employees" exclusion in Commercial Union's policy was ambiguous. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of Hartford, ordering Commercial Union to pay $135,000 plus interest.

Insurance LawExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceFiduciary DutyEquitable SubrogationPolicy ExclusionAmbiguous Contract TermDeclaratory Judgment ActionStanding to SueMarine Insurance
References
5
Case No. 2016-06-0104, 2016-06-0105 (Docket No.); 2435-2016, 6196-2016 (State File No.)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2016

Smiley, Shane v. Four Seasons Coach Leasing, Inc., et al.

The claimant, Shane Smiley, a commercial driver, alleged injury while operating a touring coach during a concert tour, attributing pain in his shoulder, left hip, and lower back to a defective seat and rough road conditions. Two potential employers, Four Seasons Coach Leasing, Inc. (coach owner) and Live Soul Touring (tour management company), denied liability. Four Seasons argued Smiley was not an employee or, if injured, Live Soul was the responsible employer under the loaned servant doctrine. Live Soul contended Smiley was an independent contractor and not a loaned servant. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court found Four Seasons to be the employer and ordered medical benefits but denied temporary disability benefits, prompting Four Seasons to appeal. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's determinations, finding Smiley was an employee of Four Seasons and not a loaned servant of Live Soul, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorLoaned Servant DoctrineCompensable InjuryMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsFactual AnalysisControl TestWork Relationship
References
11
Case No. W2019-02089-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2022

Commercial Painting Company INC. v. The Weitz Company LLC

This is the third appeal in a commercial construction project dispute between general contractor Weitz Company, LLC and subcontractor Commercial Painting Company, Inc. Commercial Painting originally sued Weitz for damages, including intentional misrepresentation and breach of contract, resulting in a jury award of $1,729,122.46 in compensatory damages and $3,900,000.00 in punitive damages, plus interest and attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee held that the economic loss rule applies to construction contracts between sophisticated commercial entities, thus barring the fraud claim and punitive damages. The court affirmed the compensatory damages for breach of contract but reversed the punitive damages and pre/post-judgment interest due to contractual waivers. The attorney's fees award was vacated and remanded for reconsideration to reflect only those fees related to the affirmed compensatory damages.

Commercial ConstructionSubcontractor DisputeBreach of ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationEconomic Loss RulePunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesAttorney's FeesPre-judgment InterestPost-judgment Interest
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valdez v. Commercial Union Assurance Companies

Carlos Valdez, the appellant, sued Commercial Union Assurance Companies to set aside a worker's compensation settlement. Valdez sustained an ankle injury while working for NAPA and later complained of back pain, which Dr. Langston reported as non-existent. Valdez settled for $2,000, but subsequently underwent back surgery for a ruptured disc. He alleged fraud, claiming reliance on false representations by Dr. Langston, whom he claimed was an agent of Commercial Union. The jury found that Dr. Langston's representation was false and material to Valdez's decision, but failed to find that Commercial Union used the reports to induce the settlement or that Dr. Langston was their agent. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no evidence that the appellee used the reports to induce the settlement or that Dr. Langston was their agent.

Compromise SettlementFraudulent InducementMedical MisrepresentationAppellate AffirmationAgent AuthorityJury Verdict ReviewBack Injury ClaimWorker's Injury SettlementInsurance DisputeTreating Physician Role
References
3
Case No. W2013-01989-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2014

Commercial Painting Company, Inc. v. The Weitz Company, LLC

This case involves a construction contract dispute between subcontractor Commercial Painting Company, Inc. and general contractor The Weitz Company, LLC. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Weitz on Commercial Painting's tort claims, but subsequently awarded judgment to Commercial Painting on other issues after trial. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court applied an incorrect standard when granting summary judgment on the tort claims, including fraud, misrepresentation, and rescission. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the summary judgment order and remanded the case, declining to address other contractual issues, as their resolution could be affected by the renewed consideration of the tort and rescission claims.

Construction ContractSummary JudgmentContract DisputeTort ClaimsNegligent MisrepresentationIntentional MisrepresentationRescissionPunitive DamagesAppellate ReviewVacated and Remanded
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 1,037 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