Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 03-12-00183-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 19, 2014

Raymond Bloch// SAVR Communications, Inc. And OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. v. SAVR Communications, Inc. OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. VanOwen Group Acquisition Company, Inc. Adam Crossno And John Crossno// Cross-Appellee, Raymond Bloch

This case originated from a dispute over severance pay in an employment agreement. Raymond Bloch sought $95,000 in severance pay from SAVR Communications, Inc. and OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. after his termination. The Texas Workforce Commission initially denied his claim, interpreting a 1998 rule under the Texas Payday Act. The district court reversed the TWC's decision, deeming the 1998 rule invalid, and awarded Bloch the $95,000. However, the district court dismissed Bloch's claim for attorney's fees due to res judicata, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals, which noted the Payday Act does not provide for fee-shifting.

Employment agreementSeverance payTexas Payday ActTexas Workforce CommissionWage claimJudicial reviewStatutory constructionAdministrative rulesRes judicataBreach of contract

References

Case No. 03-21-00294-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 30, 2022

Texas Telephone Association and Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Their Participating Members Windstream Services, LLC Texas Windstream, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Windstream Communications Kerrville, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Valor Telecommunications of Texas, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications Southwest) Windstream Sugar Land LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chairman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a dispute over the Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF), established to ensure affordable telecommunications services statewide. Rural telecommunication service providers (Rural Providers) sued the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and its Commissioners when the PUC stopped paying full TUSF support amounts. The Rural Providers alleged ultra vires acts by the Commissioners for underfunding TUSF and creating a payment hierarchy, and violations of the APA for implementing these changes without proper rulemaking. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding the Commissioners acted ultra vires and violated APA rulemaking procedures. The decision affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part, and remanded in part for damages on a regulatory takings claim.

Texas Universal Service FundTelecommunications RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRural TelecommunicationsRegulatory TakingsUltra Vires ActAdministrative Procedure ActRulemaking ViolationDeclaratory JudgmentMandamus Relief

References

Case No. 1:11-CV-330

Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton County Emergency Communications District v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC

The case concerns multiple Emergency Communications Districts (ECDs) in Tennessee, led by Hamilton County ECD, suing BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC (d/b/a AT&T Tennessee) for allegedly under-billing, under-collecting, and under-remitting 911 emergency service charges. The plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Tennessee False Claims Act, the Emergency Communications District Law (ECD Law), breach of fiduciary duty, various misrepresentation claims (fraudulent, negligent, and concealment), and common law negligence, also seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing claims related to the ECD Law (Count II) and negligence/negligence per se (Count VII). However, it allowed the False Claims Act, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, and declaratory/injunctive relief claims to proceed. The court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, deeming it premature.

911 Emergency ServicesTelecommunicationsTennessee False Claims ActEmergency Communications District LawBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent MisrepresentationFraudulent ConcealmentNegligent MisrepresentationDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent Injunction

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 12, 2007

In Re Adelphia Communications Corp.

The case concerns Debtor Adelphia Communications Corp.'s objection to a $44.7 million claim by Lucent Technologies, Inc. Lucent sought to hold Adelphia liable for debts of Devon Mobile Communications, L.P. under Delaware's Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, specifically Section 17-303, alleging de facto general partnership liability. Adelphia argued Lucent's actual knowledge of its limited partner status should defeat the claim. The Court ruled that Section 17-303(a) prioritizes the limited partner's conduct in determining a third party's reasonable belief, making the third party's actual knowledge of limited partner status irrelevant. Citing material factual disputes regarding Adelphia's conduct, the Court denied Adelphia's motion for summary judgment on Lucent's Section 17-303, alter ego, and other equitable claims, scheduling the Section 17-303 claim for the first stage of trial.

Limited Partnership LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionDelaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership ActSection 17-303De Facto General PartnerPartnership ControlVeil PiercingEquitable RemediesBreach of Contract ClaimBankruptcy Proceedings

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Esparza v. Nolan Wells Communications, Inc.

Thomas Esparza, Jr. appealed a trial court's judgment regarding his usury counterclaim against Nolan Wells Communications, Inc. The central dispute revolved around the applicability of a 'bona fide error' defense under Texas usury law, stemming from an employee's unauthorized charge of interest on Esparza's account. The appellate court clarified that intent to charge usurious interest is immaterial if such interest was, in fact, charged through a unilateral act within implied authority, and that mistakes of law do not fall under the 'accidental and bona fide error' exception. The court found that Nolan Wells Communications, Inc. had charged $93.60 in usurious interest. Consequently, the appellate court modified the trial court's judgment, awarding Esparza a forfeiture of $390.40 and $6,000.00 in attorney's fees as an offset against Nolan Wells' original claim, thus affirming the modified judgment.

Usury LawStatutory InterpretationBona Fide Error DefenseImplied AuthorityDebtor-Creditor RelationsAppellate ProcedureAttorney's FeesTexas Civil StatutesCommercial TransactionsInterest Rates

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Members for a Democratic Union v. Local 1101, Communications Workers

Plaintiffs, Members for a Democratic Union (MDU) and individual members, sought mandatory injunctive relief to compel defendants, Local 1101, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its officers, to publish an advertisement promoting a 'Defense Fund' in the union's newspaper, 'The Generator'. They argued this right under section 101(a)(2) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The defendants maintained a policy of not accepting paid advertisements, only publishing free notices for union member benefits, and argued this policy was reasonable and consistently applied. The court distinguished the case from previous rulings, noting that 'The Generator' had not 'opened the forum' to commercial speech or taken a stance on the Defense Fund issue. The court also noted that plaintiffs had other viable communication channels. Ultimately, the court found the defendants' policy to be reasonable and granted their motion for summary judgment, denying the plaintiffs' motion and dismissing the action.

Labor LawUnion DemocracyFreedom of SpeechLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActSummary JudgmentUnion NewspaperAdvertising PolicyInjunctive ReliefFirst AmendmentInternal Union Affairs

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law

References

Case No. 03-02-00030-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Communication Workers of America v. Town of Greece

The Communication Workers of America, Local 1170 (Union) appealed an order that partially vacated an arbitration award concerning the demotion of a Town of Greece police sergeant. The arbitrator had sustained disciplinary charges but reduced a permanent demotion to one year, finding the original penalty unreasonable. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, agreeing with the Union that the arbitrator acted within his broad discretion and authority under the collective bargaining agreement. The court reiterated that an arbitrator's award can only be vacated if it violates strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds specific limitations. Finding no such exceeding of authority, the appellate court granted the Union's petition to confirm the arbitration award and denied the Town's cross-petition.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementDemotionDisciplinary ActionArbitrator AuthorityJudicial ReviewLabor DisputeAppellate CourtMonroe CountyCPLR Article 75

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Qwest Communications International, Inc. v. AT & T Corp.

This opinion addresses appeals from Qwest Communications, CK Directional Drilling, and AT&T Corporation regarding a final judgment for damages to AT&T's fiber-optic cable. The jury found Qwest acted with malice in two instances of cable damage, leading to awards for economic and exemplary damages, and also found CK responsible for a third incident. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings on malice and upheld the district court's application of the statutory cap on exemplary damages. However, the court reversed the award of breach-of-contract damages to AT&T, ruling that attorney's fees and travel expenses were not recoverable consequential damages. Additionally, the court affirmed the district court's decision on the accrual date and non-tolling of prejudgment interest against CK.

Fiber-optic cable damageExemplary damagesPrejudgment interestRule 11 agreementBreach of contractVicarious liabilityIndependent contractor liabilityMaliceClear and convincing evidenceStatutory construction

References

Showing 1-10 of 7,477 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 03-12-00183-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 19, 2014

Raymond Bloch// SAVR Communications, Inc. And OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. v. SAVR Communications, Inc. OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. VanOwen Group Acquisition Company, Inc. Adam Crossno And John Crossno// Cross-Appellee, Raymond Bloch

Employment agreementSeverance payTexas Payday ActTexas Workforce CommissionWage claimJudicial reviewStatutory constructionAdministrative rulesRes judicataBreach of contract

References

Case No. 03-21-00294-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 30, 2022

Texas Telephone Association and Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Their Participating Members Windstream Services, LLC Texas Windstream, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Windstream Communications Kerrville, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Valor Telecommunications of Texas, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications Southwest) Windstream Sugar Land LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chairman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas

References

Case No. 1:11-CV-330

Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton County Emergency Communications District v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 12, 2007

References

Showing 1-10 of 7,477 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.