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. 01-04-00797-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2006

Marine Transport Corporation v. the Methodist Hospital, the Institute for Preventive Medicine/Methodist Healthcare Systems, the Methodist Hospital/Institute for Preventive Medicine Management, Inc. and Rashid Khan, M.D.

Marine Transport Corporation (Marine) appealed the dismissal of its claims against The Methodist Hospital and Dr. Rashid Khan. Marine's employee, Richard Guillory, a seaman, was certified fit for duty by the appellees despite medical issues and later died from an infection. Marine sought damages under the maritime doctrine of maintenance and cure, alleging negligence in the fitness-for-duty certification. The appellate court affirmed that while federal maritime law applied to Marine's claim, the underlying health care liability claims were governed by state law's former article 4590i, requiring expert reports. However, the trial court abused its discretion by denying Marine's motion for a 30-day extension to file these reports, as the attorney's failure was due to accident or mistake, not conscious indifference. Therefore, the judgment of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Maritime LawMaintenance and CureHealth Care LiabilityMedical NegligenceExpert Report RequirementTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAbuse of DiscretionAccident or MistakeSeaman InjuryFitness for Duty Certification
References
41
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. 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. 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. E2013-02689-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2014

Centimark Corporation v. Maszera Company, LLC.

The case, Centimark Corporation v. Maszera Company, LLC, originated from a contract dispute over a leaking commercial roof in Knox County. Centimark, the roofer, sued Maszera, the building owner, for an unpaid balance, while Maszera counter-sued for breach of contract due to faulty workmanship and materials. The trial court found in favor of Maszera, awarding $220,374.96 for roof replacement and dismissing Centimark's claims, as well as Maszera's claims for deceptive business practices and wrongful lien. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding of breach of contract and the awarded damages, while denying Maszera's cross-appeal regarding deceptive business practices.

Contract disputeRoofingConstructionBreach of contractDamagesWorkmanshipWarrantyConsumer protectionAppellate reviewEvidentiary rules
References
30
Case No. 4335 / 5258 (Consolidated)
Regular Panel Decision

Newman v. Avco Corporation-Aerospace Structures Division

This memorandum concerns consolidated class action suits alleging widespread racial discrimination by Avco Corporation and Aero Lodge No. 735, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other statutes. The court found systemic discriminatory practices affecting black employees in various areas, including promotions, transfers, and terminations. Specific instances of discrimination were affirmed for Ramsey Alexander and Robert F. Newman against both defendants, and for Raymond L. Dennis against Avco Corporation. However, Raymond L. Dennis's claims against the union and Warner McCreary's claims against both defendants regarding his suspension and termination were denied. The court concluded that discrimination against the class occurred and ordered the parties to propose appropriate relief.

Class ActionRacial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActLabor Union DiscriminationPromotionsTransfersTerminationsWorking ConditionsSeniority System
References
12
Case No. 3-15-00262-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2015

Texas Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine v. Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners And Patricia Gilbert, Executive Director in Her Official Capacity

This is an Administrative Procedures Act challenge to the validity of Chiropractic Board rules that authorize chiropractors to engage in the unlicensed practice of acupuncture. The Association sought to invalidate these rules and alternatively sought a declaration that the statutory scheme allowing chiropractors to practice acupuncture is unconstitutional. The trial court granted the Chiropractic Board’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Association’s competing motion. The Association argues that the Chiropractic Board exceeded its statutory authority, and its interpretation of the Acupuncture Chapter is unreasonable and creates public health risks due to inadequate training. Alternatively, the statutory scheme violates the Texas Constitution by favoring one school of medicine and containing more than one subject. The Association also argues that the statute of limitations defense fails.

Administrative LawScope of PracticeChiropractic RegulationAcupuncture RegulationStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersDelegation of AuthorityPublic Health and SafetyProfessional Licensing
References
97
Showing 1-10 of 4,970 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