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. 01-04-01088-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

Universal Computer Consulting, Ltd. Universal Computer Services, Inc. And Dealer Computer Services, Inc. v. Dealer Solutions, L.L.C., Dealer Solutions Holdings, Inc. ADP, Inc., Business Solutions, Inc., SMC Investment, Inc., Southwest Toyota, Inc., and SMC Luxury Cars, Inc.

This trade secrets case involves Appellants Universal Computer Systems, Inc. (UCS) and Appellees Dealer Solutions, L.L.C., Dealer Solutions Holdings, Inc., ADP, Inc., SMC Investment, Inc., Southwest Toyota, Inc., SMC Luxury Cars, Inc., and Business Solutions, Inc. (collectively DSI). The parties had a dispute regarding trade secret misappropriation and a breach of a license agreement, which they agreed to arbitrate. The trial court confirmed the arbitrators' decision, which UCS appealed, alleging improper discovery orders and 'gross mistakes' by the arbitrators. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's confirmation, finding that any error in the trial court's discovery order was ameliorated by the arbitrators' full consideration of evidence, and that UCS failed to demonstrate gross mistake in the arbitration decision.

Trade secretsArbitrationDiscovery sanctionsArbitration awardCopyright preemptionSoftware licensingConfidentiality agreementBreach of contractGross mistakeTexas General Arbitration Act
References
21
Case No. 14-04-00819-CV; 14-04-01103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2005

in Re: Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc.

Relators, Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc., Universal Computer Consulting, Ltd., and Dealer Computer Services, Inc., filed an appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus after the trial court denied their motion to compel arbitration against Hillcrest Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. The dispute arose from two contracts between DCS and Hillcrest containing arbitration provisions. Hillcrest argued the provisions were unconscionable due to fraudulent inducement, a Michigan forum selection clause, limited remedies, a shortened statute of limitations, and potential prohibitive arbitration costs. The appellate court found that Hillcrest failed to prove either procedural or substantive unconscionability. Additionally, the court ruled that the non-signatories, UCCH and UCC, could compel arbitration under equitable estoppel because Hillcrest's allegations involved substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the non-signatories and the signatory. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the interlocutory appeal, instructing the trial court to vacate its order and compel arbitration.

ArbitrationMandamusInterlocutory AppealUnconscionabilityForum Selection ClauseChoice of LawStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelNon-SignatoriesContract Law
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Universal Computer Systems, Inc. v. Dealer Solutions, L.L.C.

This case involves a trade secrets dispute between UCS (appellants) and DSI, Sterling McCall, BSI, and ADP (appellees) concerning computer software for car dealerships. The parties initially engaged in a lengthy discovery battle before agreeing to arbitrate their claims. The trial court had issued an order attempting to limit the evidence UCS could present during arbitration, which UCS argued was an improper discovery sanction. However, the arbitrators, despite this order, allowed UCS to present all its evidence. The arbitration panel ultimately found that UCS failed to prove its trade secret misappropriation claim, reasoning that its evidence did not adequately describe the overall structure, architecture, and design of its computer system as a whole. Additionally, the arbitrators concluded that, even if proven, the claim was preempted by federal copyright law. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that while the trial court's pre-arbitration discovery order was improper, it did not cause an improper judgment because the arbitrators considered all of UCS's evidence. The court also found no "gross mistake" in the arbitrators' decision regarding the trade secret claims or the preemption issue.

ArbitrationTrade SecretsDiscovery DisputeCopyright PreemptionSoftware MisappropriationAppellate ReviewArbitration Award ConfirmationGross Mistake StandardTexas General Arbitration ActEvidentiary Limits
References
26
Case No. M2001-01611-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2003

Michael Hayes v. Computer Sciences

Michael Lee Hayes sued Aerospace Contractor Support (ACS), Computer Sciences Corporation, Dyncorp, Inc., and General Physics Corporation for retaliatory discharge. Hayes alleged he was terminated for filing a workers' compensation claim against a previous employer, Brighton Painting Company, not ACS. The Circuit Court for Coffee County granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that Tennessee law did not permit a retaliatory discharge claim against a subsequent employer for a prior workers' compensation claim. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that a cause of action for retaliatory discharge exists under Tennessee law when an employee is terminated by a subsequent employer due to a workers' compensation claim filed against a previous employer. The court emphasized that this interpretation is necessary to enforce the duty of the employer, secure the rights of the employee, and fulfill the legislative intent of the Workers' Compensation Act, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimPrior EmployerSubsequent EmployerSummary JudgmentAt-Will Employment ExceptionPublic PolicyAppellate ReviewEmployment LawTennessee Court of Appeals
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

La Tier v. Compaq Computer Corp.

Alegría La Tier appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Compaq Computer Corporation in a suit alleging retaliatory discharge. La Tier claimed her termination was in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, while Compaq asserted it was for violating company policy regarding dishonesty and misuse of assets (taking leftover food). The appellate court reviewed whether La Tier presented sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between her workers' compensation claim and termination, and whether Compaq's stated reason for termination was legitimate. The court found that evidence, including supervisors' knowledge of the claim, a negative attitude displayed by a supervisor, and conflicting testimony regarding company policy on taking leftover food, raised genuine issues of material fact. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimSummary Judgment AppealCausal LinkPretextCircumstantial EvidenceEmployment LawBurden ShiftingTexas LawCompany Policy Violation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gerber v. Computer Associates International, Inc.

Plaintiff Joel Gerber initiated a class action against Computer Associates International, Inc., and Jack M. Berdy, alleging violations of federal securities regulations. The defendants, specifically Berdy, filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and sought sanctions against the plaintiff's counsel, arguing that the claims lacked sufficient particularity and legal basis. The Court, presided over by Judge Johnson, denied both motions, finding that the amended complaint adequately pled the necessary elements for securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as satisfying the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) FRCP. The Court further determined that the plaintiff's allegations were not merely "bootstrapping" state law fiduciary duty claims into federal securities law, thus making the claims proper. Consequently, the Court instructed the plaintiff to amend the complaint to reflect prior dismissals of certain counts and lifted the stay on class certification proceedings.

Securities FraudClass Action LawsuitMotion to DismissPleading StandardRule 10b-5Exchange Act Section 10(b)Exchange Act Section 14(e)FRCP Rule 12(b)(6)FRCP Rule 9(b)Fiduciary Duty Breach
References
19
Case No. 05-14-00257-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2015

Sun Tec Computer, Inc. v. the Recovar Group, LLC, Tax Debt Acquisition Company, LLC

This document is a post-submission letter brief filed by Appellee Tax Debt Acquisition Company, LLC (TDAC) in response to Appellants' (Sun Tec Computer Inc., et al.) post-submission brief. TDAC argues that Appellants raised two new arguments that were not presented in their initial brief, thereby waiving them. Even if considered, TDAC asserts that these arguments—concerning a motion to consolidate that was never ruled upon and the application of Section 64.052 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code to authorize a collateral attack on a turnover order and receiver's sale—do not change the fact that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed. TDAC contends that Appellants are pursuing relief in the wrong case and that the judgment should be upheld.

Post-Submission BriefWaiver of ArgumentMotion to ConsolidateTrial Court JudgmentAffirmation of JudgmentCollateral AttackTurnover OrderReceiver's SaleTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morse v. Weingarten

This case involves a securities fraud class action where plaintiffs, shareholders of First Capital Holdings Corp., alleged that defendant Michael Milken violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and committed common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs claimed Milken, through his 'Daisy Chain' scheme, caused First Capital to invest heavily in junk bonds, leading to its collapse and misleading statements about its financial health. Milken moved to dismiss all claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and 9(b) for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity, and to strike portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f). The court granted Milken's motion to dismiss all claims, finding that Morse failed to adequately allege a primary violation of Section 10(b) due to a lack of 'in connection with' and causation, insufficient knowledge for aider and abettor liability, insufficient control for control person liability, and inadequate pleading of conspiracy. The common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims were also dismissed for similar reasons, and the court granted the motion to strike references to Milken's criminal conviction and income as immaterial.

Securities FraudClass Action LawsuitMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)Aiding and AbettingControl Person LiabilityConspiracyCommon Law FraudNegligent Misrepresentation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LM Business Associates, Inc. v. State

Defendant appealed a Court of Claims judgment that found them liable to claimants for conversion and negligent misrepresentation. The case stemmed from the seizure of claimants' computers during a fraud investigation into affiliated businesses, which resulted in the owner's conviction, though claimants were never charged. The seized computers, vital for claimants' businesses, were returned over two years later. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that defendant's seizure and retention of the computers were authorized by a valid search warrant, thus not constituting conversion. It further ruled that no 'privity-like relationship' existed between investigators and claimants to support a negligent misrepresentation claim. Lastly, the court dismissed the constitutional tort claim, noting claimants had adequate alternative remedies in other forums.

ConversionNegligent MisrepresentationSearch WarrantSeizure of PropertyState LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstitutional TortFraud InvestigationWorkers' Compensation LawCourt of Claims
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2004

Nexans Wires S.A. v. Sark-USA, Inc.

Plaintiffs Nexans Wires S.A. and Lacroix & Kress GmbH sued defendants Sark-USA, Inc. and Sarkuysan Elektrolitik Bakir Sanayii Ve Ticaret A.S., alleging unfair competition, trade secret misappropriation, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The core of the federal claim centered on allegations that defendants induced former employees of a customer, AEB, to steal plaintiffs' proprietary information from AEB's computer systems. The court converted the defendants' motion to dismiss the CFAA claims into a motion for summary judgment to assess if plaintiffs met the CFAA's jurisdictional "loss" threshold of $5,000. It determined that the claimed losses, consisting of executive travel expenses and lost revenue unrelated to computer service interruption, did not qualify as "loss" under the CFAA's definition. Consequently, the federal CFAA claims were dismissed, but the court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Computer Fraud and Abuse ActCFAASummary JudgmentTrade Secret MisappropriationUnfair CompetitionJurisdictionStandingFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureData TheftProprietary Information
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 1,489 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