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. 01-20-00465-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2020

in Re VCPalmsWestheimer Development LLC & Parawest Community Development LLC

Relators, VC PalmsWestheimer, LLC and Parawest Community Development, LLC, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Judge Daryl Moore to vacate an order denying their motion for leave to designate a responsible third party. The underlying case involves Seyedali Parsafar suing the Relators for negligence, gross negligence, premises liability, and DTPA violations following an assault at an apartment complex. The Relators sought to designate Jaeylen Deshawn Turner or an unknown individual (John Doe) as a responsible third party. The trial court denied the motion, believing the disclosure was untimely as it was not made before the statute of limitations ran or in the initial answer. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court abused its discretion, clarifying that disclosure obligations for responsible third parties arise when discovery responses are due, not necessarily before the statute of limitations or in the original answer when no discovery was served, and conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus.

MandamusResponsible Third PartyTimelinessStatute of LimitationsDiscoveryPleading RequirementsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate RemedyTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2001

Silva v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency

Jose Silva, an employee of Mar Jea Equipment, Inc., was allegedly injured during construction work on property owned by the Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency. Silva sued the Agency for personal injuries. The Agency, in turn, initiated a third-party action against Mar Jea for indemnification. Mar Jea moved to dismiss this third-party complaint, arguing that the Agency's claim for common-law indemnification was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Although the Agency contended it had a claim for contractual indemnification, the subcontract between Mar Jea and the general contractor required written consent from the Agency, which was never obtained. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted Mar Jea's motion to dismiss, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSubcontractCondition PrecedentWorkers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment
References
2
Case No. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. 01-04-00096-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2006

Heritage Housing Development, Inc., F/K/A Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. Heritage Geriatric Housing Development Viii, Inc. v. Velma Carr, as Heir at Law and Representative of the Estate of Raymond Carr

Velma Carr brought a survival action against Heritage Geriatric Housing Development VIII, Inc. d/b/a Heritage Sam Houston Gardens ("Houston Gardens") and its parent corporation, Heritage Housing Development, Inc. f/k/a Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. ("HHD"), for negligent nursing home care of her deceased husband, Raymond Carr. A jury found both corporate entities and employees negligent. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against HHD, finding legally insufficient evidence to support vicarious liability against the parent corporation because it did not control the details of patient care. However, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the negligence claim against Houston Gardens. Due to the potential impact of HHD's inclusion on the jury's apportionment of liability and damages, the case was remanded for a new trial on the negligence claim against Houston Gardens.

Nursing Home NegligenceVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceParent Company LiabilityCorporate ControlNegligent CareTexas Court of AppealsRemand for New TrialMedical Malpractice
References
22
Case No. M2017-01369-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2018

The Manor Homes, LLC v. . Ashby Communities, LLC

This case involves a contract dispute between a developer, Ashby Communities, LLC, and a builder, The Manor Homes, LLC, over the construction of a residential property. The developer removed the builder from the project, alleging non-compliance with contract terms. The trial court found the developer breached the contract first by failing to provide the builder an opportunity to cure identified problems and awarded damages to the builder. The developer appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the developer committed the initial material breach and that the builder did not make actionable misrepresentations regarding its licensing status or financial capability.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractConstruction LawReal Estate DevelopmentAppellate ReviewTennessee LawContractual InterpretationOpportunity to CureDamages AwardConsumer Protection Act
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGurran v. DiCanio Planned Development Corp.

DiCanio Planned Development Corp. (DPD) appealed an order dismissing its third-party complaint against DiCanio Residential Communities Corp. (DRC) in a personal injury action. Both DPD and DRC were additional named insureds under a multi-peril general liability policy issued by General Accident Insurance Company. An employee of DRC was injured at a DPD construction site, and General Accident paid the settlement for DPD. The central issue was whether the common-law antisubrogation rule precluded General Accident from seeking indemnification from DRC. The court determined that the antisubrogation rule did not apply because the General Accident policy contained an employee exclusion, meaning DRC was not covered by General Accident for the specific claims related to its employee's injury. DRC was separately covered by the State Insurance Fund for workers' compensation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied DRC's motion to dismiss, and reinstated the third-party complaint.

Antisubrogation RuleIndemnificationInsurance Policy ExclusionThird-Party ComplaintPersonal Injury DamagesAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation CoverageCommon Law PrinciplesCoverage DisputeSubrogation Rights
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between North Country Community College Ass'n & North Country Community College

Petitioner Michael Leahy, a tenured accounting professor, was terminated by North Country Community College for misconduct involving a heated verbal exchange with his supervisor. Leahy and his union, the North Country Community College Association of Professionals, filed a grievance that proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator found serious misconduct but modified the penalty to a 15-month suspension without pay, along with anger management counseling, rather than termination. Petitioners sought to confirm the arbitration award, while respondents cross-moved to vacate it. The Supreme Court confirmed the award, and this appellate court affirmed that decision, concluding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in modifying the penalty and that the award was not irrational or violative of strong public policy.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationEmployee TerminationWorkplace MisconductCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrator AuthorityPublic Policy ChallengePenalty ModificationAnger ManagementJudicial Review of ArbitrationDisciplinary Action
References
8
Case No. 10-09-00231-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2010

Jaime Ibarra and Maria Ibarra Torres v. the Hines Land Group, LTD., A.W. Hines, Kelly King Hines, Ricky D. Hines, Individually and D/B/A Hines Development Corporation, Hines Development, LTD., and Hines Development Management, LLC

Jaime Ibarra, an employee of Moss Concrete Construction Co., Inc., was injured when a dirt wall collapsed while he was repairing a leak in a man-made lake at the Pecan Valley Ranch subdivision, developed by The Hines Land Group. Ibarra and Maria Ibarra Torres sued the Hines Appellees, alleging various causes of action including negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring, and negligent undertaking. The trial court granted the Hines Appellees' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the Hines Appellees owed no duty to Ibarra as they did not retain or exercise control over the excavation work, the trench was an open and obvious defect created by the independent contractors, and negligent hiring claims do not apply to independent contractors' employees.

Personal InjurySummary Judgment AppealPremises LiabilityNegligence ClaimsIndependent Contractor LiabilityDuty of CareAppellate Court DecisionTexas Civil ProcedureConstruction Site InjuryGross Negligence
References
50
Case No. CV 93-1443 ADS
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2000

LI HEAD START CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERV. v. Kearse

This case addresses cross-motions for reconsideration regarding a prior court order compelling defendants to return $497,736 to L.I. Head Start. The defendants' motion, citing concerns about the financial stability of the Community Action Agencies Insurance Group (CAAIG) Fund if the transfer occurred, was denied, as the court found their evidence outdated and irrelevant to the appropriate assessment date of withdrawal in 1992. Conversely, the plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment interest on the owed sum was granted, with the court ordering the defendants to pay the principal amount plus interest accrued from September 1, 1992. Additionally, the court awarded attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs, finding evidence of bad faith on the part of the defendants and noting the deterrent effect such an award would have on other fund trustees. However, the plaintiffs' request for computer legal research costs was denied as not being a separately taxable expense.

ERISAPension PlanHealth Benefit FundMotion for ReconsiderationPrejudgment InterestAttorneys' FeesFund DepletionFinancial StabilityBad FaithFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 3,305 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