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. 14-15-00024-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2015

Microsoft Corporation// Michael Mercieca v. Michael Mercieca// Cross-Appellee, Microsoft Corporation

This Appellant's Reply Brief, filed by Microsoft Corporation, addresses an appeal regarding a retaliation/constructive discharge claim brought by Michael Mercieca. Microsoft argues that the jury's findings of constructive discharge, good faith engagement in a protected activity, and but-for causation lack legal sufficiency. The corporation contends that Mercieca's claims are based on subjective interpretations of isolated incidents and an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Furthermore, Microsoft challenges the awarded damages, including back-pay, mental anguish, and attorney's fees, arguing they are based on flawed evidence. Microsoft requests that the Court reverse the judgment and render a take-nothing judgment.

RetaliationConstructive DischargeEmployment LawTexas Commission on Human Rights ActAppealLegal SufficiencyDamagesMental AnguishAttorney's FeesConspiracy
References
42
Case No. 14-09-00105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2009

in Re Investment Capital Corporation and Service Corporation International

Relators Investment Capital Corporation (ICC) and Service Corporation International (SCI) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Kathleen Stone of Probate Court No. 1 of Harris County to grant leave to designate SCI Funeral & Cemetary Purchasing Cooperative, Inc. as a responsible third party in a wrongful death suit. The underlying suit was initiated by the widow of Harold Israel, who suffered fatal injuries after falling in a parking garage. The trial court denied the relators' motion to designate SCI Funeral as a responsible third party. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that the relators had an adequate remedy at law and that the case did not present the extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify mandamus relief, distinguishing it from precedent such as In re Arthur Andersen.

Mandamus ReliefResponsible Third Party DesignationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate RemedyWrongful Death SuitNegligence ClaimsGross NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActAbuse of Discretion
References
10
Case No. 09-22-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Lexington Insurance Company v. Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation

This case from the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses an appeal by Lexington Insurance Company against Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation. Lexington challenged a summary judgment that awarded Exxon $25 million under an umbrella insurance policy. The dispute centered on whether Exxon qualified as an additional insured under a policy issued to Brock Services, LTD, and if specific policy exclusions for workers' compensation and employer's liability applied. The court affirmed the arbitration finding that Exxon was an additional insured but ultimately reversed the trial court's judgment. It ruled that the employer's liability exclusion applied, given Exxon's status as a statutory employer of Brock's injured employees through its Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP), thus entitling Exxon to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Consequently, Lexington was found to have no duty to defend or indemnify Exxon, and the awards for damages, attorney's fees, and interest were reversed.

Insurance Policy CoverageUmbrella InsuranceWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer's Liability ExclusionExclusive RemedyOCIPStatutory EmployerAdditional Insured StatusArbitration ReviewSummary Judgment Reversal
References
33
Case No. 14-18-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2019

James Construction Group, LLC, Primoris Services Corporation v. Westlake Chemical Corporation

James Construction Group, LLC and Primoris Services Corporation appealed a judgment concerning contract claims with Westlake Chemical Corporation. Chemical had initially sued James for breach of a construction contract, citing safety violations and a failure to indemnify. The jury found James liable for breach of contract and indemnification, leading to damages and attorney's fees awarded against Primoris due to a guaranty. On appeal, the court affirmed the jury's findings on James's liability and the attorney's fees against Primoris. Crucially, the court reversed the trial court's judgment awarding James damages on its counterclaim, clarifying that a contractual waiver of consequential damages serves as an affirmative defense rather than a basis for a breach-of-contract claim.

Contract LawBreach of ContractConstruction ContractIndemnificationGuaranty AgreementAttorney's FeesConsequential DamagesWaiver of DamagesConditions PrecedentSubstantial Compliance
References
136
Case No. 13-02-415-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2003

Daimlerchrysler Corporation (f/K/A Chrysler Corporation), Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler v. Bill L. Inman, David Castro and John Wilkins, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

This case involves an interlocutory appeal filed by DaimlerChrysler Corporation, challenging a trial court's certification of two nationwide classes. The plaintiffs are owners of DaimlerChrysler automobiles equipped with defective Gen-3 seatbelt buckles, alleging design defects leading to purely economic losses, but no physical injury or property damage. DaimlerChrysler contended the plaintiffs lacked standing under common-law torts, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), and Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) warranties. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the plaintiffs had standing, concluding they suffered a distinct, actual injury from insufficient product value, and that monetary damages would provide redress. However, the court reversed and remanded the class certification due to the trial court's failure to perform a proper choice-of-law analysis for nationwide claims.

Defective ProductsClass ActionStanding to SueEconomic LossSeatbelt DefectsTexas LawDTPAUCCBreach of WarrantyNegligence
References
96
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Victory Energy Corporation, Smart Gas, LLC, and HCP Investments, LLC v. Oz Gas Corporation

This case involves an appeal by three business associations (Appellants) challenging a trial court's decision that named Oz Gas Corporation (Appellee) as the true leaseholder of disputed oil and gas land in Crockett County, Texas. The Appellants were also assessed damages for bad faith trespass. The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of a Substitute Trustee's Deed concerning the conveyance of oil and gas leasehold interests. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that Oz Gas Corporation holds exclusive title to the West Unit of the disputed land. The court also found that Appellants committed bad faith mineral trespass by relying on an outdated title opinion and failing to conduct proper due diligence, and upheld the joint and several liability for damages.

Oil and Gas LeasesMineral RightsTrespass to Try TitleBad Faith TrespassDeed ConstructionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLeasehold InterestProration UnitsRailroad Commission
References
36
Case No. 348-363561-25
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2025

Pecos Housing Finance Corporation, Pleasanton Housing Finance Corporation, Maverick Housing Finance Corporation, and La Villa Housing Finance Corporation v. City of Arlington

The City of Arlington and City of Fort Worth initiated a lawsuit against several Housing Finance Corporations (HFCs) and Joe Don Bobbitt, the Chief Appraiser of the Tarrant Appraisal District. The cities allege that these HFCs are unlawfully removing properties in Tarrant County from tax appraisal rolls, resulting in significant loss of tax revenue. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of the Texas Housing Finance Corporation Act, with cities arguing that HFCs are operating outside their geographical jurisdictions and for non-low-income housing purposes. The HFCs filed pleas to the jurisdiction and motions to transfer venue. The court denied Pecos HFC's plea to the jurisdiction and granted the temporary injunctions sought by both cities, prohibiting HFCs from further acquisitions or tax exemption requests in Arlington and Fort Worth, and preventing the Chief Appraiser from granting such exemptions. The HFCs are now appealing these interlocutory orders.

Housing Finance Corporation ActTax Exemption DisputeProperty Tax LitigationDeclaratory JudgmentTemporary InjunctionGovernmental ImmunityVenue DisputeAdministrative RemediesLocal Government LawTarrant County
References
0
Case No. 09-06-298 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2006

in Re Exxon Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Individually F/K/A Mobil Oil Corporation and A/K/A Mobil Chemical Company, a Division of ExxonMobile Oil Corporation, Mobil Chemical Company, Inc., Individually and F/K/A Mobil Chemical Corporation

This mandamus proceeding before the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses whether a trial court can compel a party to present a deponent to detail efforts taken to search for documents. Exxon, defendants in underlying benzene exposure suits by Wilkinson, Hebert, and Stubbs, challenged a trial court's order requiring a deposition regarding their discovery compliance. The Court of Appeals found the order constituted an improper 'fishing expedition' that would invade attorney-client and work product privileges, as it sought to inquire into the mental processes of counsel. The court concluded the trial court abused its discretion and conditionally granted mandamus relief, ordering the trial court to vacate its prior discovery order.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeWork Product PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegeFishing ExpeditionTexas Civil ProcedureOverbroad DiscoveryDepositionCorporate RepresentativeBenzene Exposure
References
6
Case No. 01-18-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Shakeel Uddin v. Jacqueline K. Cunningham Deputy Receiver of Southern Title Insurance Corporation and Southern Title Insurance Corporation

Appellant Shakeel Uddin appealed a summary judgment granted to Southern Title Insurance Corporation (STIC). Uddin had guaranteed a loan to Nabeel & Amaan Investments, Inc. (NAI), which defaulted, leading to a claim by the lender, Sterling Bank, under a title insurance policy issued by STIC. After paying Sterling and being assigned the loan rights, STIC sued Uddin directly on the guaranty. Uddin argued that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that he had raised material issues of fact on his affirmative defenses. The First District Court of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the statute of limitations was not jurisdictional, STIC's capacity issue was cured by the relation-back doctrine, STIC established its claim, and Uddin had contractually waived his other affirmative defenses.

Guaranty AgreementLoan DefaultTitle InsuranceSubrogationStatute of LimitationsStandingCapacityRelation-Back DoctrineContractual WaiverAffirmative Defenses
References
19
Case No. 13-17-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

H & H Sand and Gravel, Inc., a Texas Corporation v. Suntide Sandpit, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Mike Hurst, Individually, Phil Hurst, Individually, and Erma Stillwell

H & H Sand and Gravel, Inc. (Appellant) sued Suntide Sandpit, Inc., Mike Hurst, Phil Hurst, and Erma Stillwell (Appellees) for contractual damages. H & H was awarded damages against Suntide and Stillwell, but not against Mike and Phil. H & H appealed three issues: the trial court's alleged errors in failing to instruct the jury on the Texas Construction Trust Fund Act, spoliation of evidence, and piercing the corporate veil; failure to enforce a discovery order and grant death penalty sanctions; and failure to award contingent appellate attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions, the denial of death penalty sanctions, and declining to award contingent appellate attorney's fees as H & H did not prevail on appeal.

Contractual DamagesConstruction Trust Fund ActSpoliation of EvidencePiercing the Corporate VeilJury InstructionsDiscovery SanctionsMonetary SanctionsAppellate Attorney's FeesCommercial LawCorporate Law
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 4,024 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