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. 03-18-00282-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2019

Yvette Mata v. Capitol Wright Distributing, LLC Dalton Marek And Wright Distributing Co., Inc.

Yvette Mata appealed the district court's dismissal of her personal injury suit against Capitol Wright Distributing, LLC, Dalton Marek, and Wright Distributing Co., Inc. for want of prosecution. She contended that the district court provided inadequate notice of its intent to dismiss and erred in denying her motion to reinstate the case. The appellate court found that Mata was presumed to know Williamson County's local rules requiring a motion to retain, thus deeming the dismissal notice adequate. Furthermore, the court determined that any potential due process issues were rectified by the post-dismissal hearing on Mata's motion to reinstate. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Mata failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in prosecuting her case.

Personal injurydismissal for want of prosecutionmotion to reinstateappellate reviewdue diligenceinadequate noticeabuse of discretionTexas Rules of Civil Procedurelocal court rulesappellate procedure
References
19
Case No. 12-16-00095-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2016

Albert Ray Williams v. Great Western Distributing Company of Amarillo D/B/A Bill Reed Distributing Company

Albert Ray Williams appealed the trial court's summary judgment granted in favor of Great Western Distributing Company. The case stemmed from an accident involving Williams and Dakotah Croxton, a delivery driver for Great Western. Williams sued Great Western for direct and vicarious liability under respondeat superior. The trial court granted summary judgment on the respondeat superior claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Williams presented no evidence that Croxton was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident because he was on a personal errand (traveling home for lunch) when the collision occurred.

Summary JudgmentRespondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentPersonal ErrandDelivery Driver AccidentEmployer LiabilityTexas Appeals CourtAffirmationNo Evidence
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Interstate Cigar Co. v. Interstate Distribution, Inc. (In Re Interstate Cigar Co.)

This Memorandum Decision addresses the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment regarding damages in an adversary proceeding. The Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Interstate Cigar Co., Inc. sued Interstate Distribution, Inc. and Congress Financial Corporation, alleging violations of Article 6 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Bulk Sales Law). A New York State Appellate Court had already determined Congress's liability for violating the Bulk Sales Law. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, was tasked with determining the appropriate damages. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, concluding that Congress is liable for the value of the inventory and equipment transferred, fixing damages at $14,976,662.00. The decision also awarded prejudgment interest to compensate the Plaintiff for Congress's wrongful retention of asset value, with the specific interest rate to be determined in a subsequent hearing.

Bankruptcy LawBulk Sales LawUniform Commercial Code Article 6Summary JudgmentDamages CalculationPrejudgment InterestFraudulent ConveyanceAsset TransferCreditor ProtectionTrustee Powers
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Monte Carlo Distributing Co. v. Rosas

Joe Rosas sued Southern Brewing Company and Monte Carlo Distributing Company for damages resulting from a collision between his truck and one driven by Barrett, owned by Monte Carlo Distributing Company. The collision occurred when Barrett attempted to pass Rosas's truck, which was carrying a long culvert without a required red flag. A jury found Barrett negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout and awarded Rosas $7,500. Monte Carlo Distributing Company appealed, citing conflicting jury findings and the trial court's refusal to submit defensive issues regarding Rosas's alleged contributory negligence in not displaying the red flag. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, concluding that the failure to submit these defensive issues, which could have constituted a complete defense, was an error.

CollisionTruck accidentNegligenceContributory negligenceLookoutRed flag statuteDamagesJury findingsAppellate reviewReversal
References
10
Case No. 01-03-00753-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2004

Joseph Earl Cavender v. Houston Distributing Co., Inc.

Joseph Earl Cavender sued Houston Distributing Company, Inc. for wrongful termination, alleging a violation of Texas Labor Code section 451.001 after his employment was terminated due to an absence exceeding 180 consecutive days while on workers' compensation leave. A jury ruled in favor of Houston Distributing, and the trial court issued a take-nothing judgment. On appeal, Cavender contended his termination violated the Texas Labor Code as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing Texas Supreme Court precedent that uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence-control policy does not constitute retaliatory discharge, even when the absence is related to a workers' compensation claim.

Wrongful TerminationWorkers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeAbsence Control PolicyTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewEmployment LawJury VerdictAffirmed JudgmentEmployer Policy
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1979

In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Am-Lon Knit Goods Finishing Corp.

This proceeding involved an assignee for the benefit of creditors seeking judicial determination of priority among various creditor claims. The claims included those from the Federal Government, preferred wage claims, the New York State Tax Commission for income withholding taxes, the Industrial Commissioner for unemployment insurance contributions, the Director of Finance of the City of New York for various city taxes, and two insurance companies for workers' compensation insurance premiums. The court reconsidered an earlier decision and clarified that Labor Law § 574 is applicable and controlling in this context, establishing parity between New York State and City tax claims. Consequently, these tax claims were granted priority over the workers' compensation insurance premiums. The decision also distinguishes insolvency proceedings from decedent's estate cases, which are governed by SCPA 1811.

InsolvencyCreditor PriorityTax ClaimsUnemployment InsuranceWorkers' CompensationAssignee for Benefit of CreditorsState TaxesCity TaxesLabor LawSCPA
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Aerospace and Defense Co. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Steel Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Aerospace and Defense Company (Aerospace Committee) appealed a Bankruptcy Court's November 5, 1991, order that authorized LTV Steel to make payments to the J & L Hourly Pension Plan. The Aerospace Committee claimed standing based on the potential consolidation of LTV estates, a prospective claim for contribution against LTV Steel, and the effect on their cash distributions. The District Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Aerospace Committee lacked standing. The court found their asserted interests too indirect and speculative, emphasizing that a party must be directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by a bankruptcy order to have standing for appeal.

Bankruptcy AppealStanding DoctrinePecuniary InterestCreditors' RightsPension Benefit Guaranty CorporationERISAChapter 11 BankruptcyCorporate ReorganizationJoint and Several LiabilityControlled Group
References
27
Case No. 91 Civ. 8373 (DNE)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1992

In Re Chateaugay Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Aerospace and Defense Company (Aerospace Committee) from a Bankruptcy Court order. The order authorized LTV Steel Company, Inc. to make payments to a pension plan. The LTV Corporation and its affiliates had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1986, with cases procedurally but not substantively consolidated. The Aerospace Committee claimed standing to appeal, arguing potential impact from a future unitary reorganization plan, a claim for contribution, and effects on cash distributions. The District Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Aerospace Committee lacked standing because its pecuniary interests were not directly and adversely affected, and its arguments were speculative.

Bankruptcy AppealStandingPecuniary InterestUnsecured Creditors CommitteePension Plan FundingERISAControlled Group LiabilityChapter 11 ProceedingsProcedural ConsolidationSubstantive Consolidation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Limestone Products Distribution, Inc. v. McNamara

This case involves a fatal collision between Coy Mathis's car and Tom McNamara's motorcycle. McNamara's survivors sued Mathis and Limestone Products Distribution, Inc., alleging Mathis's negligence. The central issue was whether Mathis was an independent contractor or an employee of Limestone, and if an employee, whether he was acting within the course and scope of his employment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Limestone, but the court of appeals reversed. The Texas Supreme Court ultimately reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the summary-judgment evidence conclusively proved Mathis was an independent contractor at the time of the accident, thus Limestone was not liable for his negligence.

Independent ContractorEmployee StatusCourse of EmploymentSummary JudgmentNegligenceVicarious LiabilityRight to Control TestMotor Vehicle AccidentFatal InjuryAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TTL Distribution, Inc. v. Local 99, Office & Distribution Employees Union

This case concerns a dispute between TTL Distribution, Inc. (formerly Ups 'N Downs, Inc.), an employer, and the Office and Distribution Employees’ Union Local 99, I.L.G.W.U. The employer sought to vacate an arbitration award, while the Union moved to confirm it. The underlying arbitration stemmed from Ups 'N Downs' decision to close its warehouse and terminate employees after selling its retail stores, without ensuring the buyer assumed contractual obligations under their collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the Union, ordering back pay, vacation pay, and fund contributions. The District Court upheld the arbitrator's decision, emphasizing the broad scope of arbitration in labor relations and confirming the award.

Arbitration AwardLabor DisputeUnion ContractCollective BargainingEmployer SaleEmployee TerminationContractual ObligationsJudicial DeferenceFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 576 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