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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Custom Transit, L.P., Richway Cartage, Inc., and Custom Operations, LLC v. Flatrolled Steel, Inc.

Flatrolled Steel Inc. sued Custom Transit, L.P., Custom Operations, LLC, and Richway Cartage, Inc., for breach of contract, negligence, and conversion related to damaged and lost steel coils. A jury found Custom Transit liable for breach of contract and conversion, and Custom Transit and Richway liable for negligence and gross negligence. The trial court entered a final judgment on July 9, 2010, allowing Flatrolled to recover contract damages from Custom Transit and actual and exemplary damages from Richway. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding contract damages and attorney's fees against Custom Transit and Custom Operations. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment for actual and exemplary damages against Richway, rendering a take-nothing judgment for Flatrolled against Richway, finding insufficient evidence to establish a duty of care for a negligent activity claim.

Contract LawNegligenceGross NegligenceConversionBreach of ContractEconomic Loss RuleAccord and SatisfactionProperty Owner RuleExpert TestimonySufficiency of Evidence
References
47
Case No. 2-07-133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2008

Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc. D/B/A Benchmark Custom Homes and Mark David Rotella v. Joan Cutting

This case involves an appeal by Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc. d/b/a Benchmark Custom Homes and Mark David Rotella (Appellants) against Joan Cutting (Appellee). Appellants challenged the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment and deny their motion for a new trial, primarily arguing a lack of proper notice. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that evidence of selective refusal of service established constructive notice. The court also upheld Mark Rotella's joint and several liability, citing his personal guarantee in the construction contract and his liability for tortious acts as an agent. Appellants' claim regarding a lack of fraudulent intent was overruled due to insufficient briefing.

Summary JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice RequirementsDue ProcessConstructive NoticeService of ProcessJoint and Several LiabilityCorporate Agent LiabilityFraudulent IntentAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 2-07-226-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2008

Mark Rotella, Individually, and Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc., D/B/A Benchmark Custom Homes v. Dozier Cabinet Works, Inc.

Appellants Mark Rotella, individually, and Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc., d/b/a Benchmark Custom Homes, appealed a trial court's default judgment in favor of Dozier Cabinet Works, Inc. Appellants contended that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion for new trial, arguing they failed to set up a meritorious defense. The court found that mere allegations of beliefs or legal conclusions were insufficient for a meritorious defense. Appellants also argued that the trial court erred in holding Rotella vicariously liable under the Texas Property Code, claiming no contract existed in the record. However, the default judgment stated that the trial court heard evidence and found Rotella personally liable under Chapter 162 of the Texas Property Code. The appellants failed to provide a reporter's record to show error in the trial court's judgment. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionMeritorious DefenseVicarious LiabilityTexas Property CodeConstruction Trust FundsAppellate ReviewReporter's Record BurdenCivil Procedure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Custom-Crete, Inc. v. K-Bar Services, Inc.

Custom-Crete, Inc. appealed a default judgment in a case where K-Bar Services, Inc. sued them on an alleged oral contract. The appellate court found that Custom-Crete's non-attorney corporate representative filed a defective answer, which was nonetheless sufficient to prevent a no-answer default. The court also determined that Custom-Crete did not receive the mandatory forty-five days' notice for the trial setting, and their non-attorney representative's presence at trial did not constitute a waiver of this right. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's default judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial, emphasizing that mere negligence does not justify denying a new trial under the Craddock test when due process is violated.

Default JudgmentAppellate ReviewDue ProcessNotice RequirementsCorporate RepresentationNon-Attorney RepresentationMotion for New TrialWaiverTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAbuse of Discretion
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.B. Custom Design & Building v. Clawson

The appeal stems from a Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) lawsuit filed by L.W. Clawson and Linda Clawson against J.B. Custom Design and Building for damages related to faulty foundation repair services. The jury found that J.B. Custom Design engaged in unworkmanlike conduct, misrepresentations, and knowingly committed DTPA violations, awarding actual and mental anguish damages. The trial court initially awarded discretionary treble damages and set aside the mental anguish award. On appeal, the court ruled that the trial court erred in determining discretionary damages without a jury issue and in setting aside the jury's findings on mental anguish. The judgment was reformed, reducing discretionary damages by $14,000 and reinstating $8,000 for mental anguish, resulting in a total judgment of $18,000 in damages plus $9,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActDTPAfoundation repairunworkmanlike mannermisrepresentationknowing conductmental anguish damagestreble damagesjury findingsjudgment notwithstanding verdict
References
17
Case No. 13-09-00198-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2010

Robert Sutherland, Jesus De La Garza, and Southern Customs Paint and Body v. Robert Keith Spencer

This case is an appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial after a default judgment was entered against Robert Sutherland, Jesse Garza, and Southern Customs Paint and Body (appellants) in favor of Robert Keith Spencer (appellee). The appellants argued that the default judgment was void due to improper service and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion for new trial, contending they satisfied the Craddock test. The court addressed the misnomer issue regarding service on Jesse Garza and Southern Customs, finding that the correct parties were served and not misled. Furthermore, the court concluded that the appellants failed to meet the first prong of the Craddock test, as their failure to answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, thus affirming the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialService of ProcessMisnomerCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
38
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05313 [119 AD3d 758]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Perla v. Daytree Custom Builders, Inc.

Milton Perla and his wife initiated an action for personal injuries against Daytree Custom Builders, Inc. after Mr. Perla fell from a roof during employment and received Workers' Compensation benefits. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation and sought discovery sanctions or to strike the defendant's Workers' Compensation exclusivity defense. The Supreme Court denied their motion, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendant was an alter ego of Mr. Perla's employer, which could limit remedies to Workers' Compensation. Additionally, the court found the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate willful discovery non-compliance and lacked a good faith affirmation for the discovery dispute. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate ProcedureRooftop FallEmployer LiabilityConstruction Accident
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith Barney Shearson Inc. v. Sacharow

This opinion addresses two consolidated cases, Smith Barney, Inc. v. Sacharow and Smith Barney, Inc. v. Hause, concerning the arbitrability of securities transaction disputes under the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure. Smith Barney sought to stay arbitrations initiated by customers Sacharow and Hause, arguing that claims over six years old were ineligible per NASD Code § 15 and that courts, not arbitrators, should decide this eligibility. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision to compel arbitration, holding that while § 15 is a substantive eligibility requirement, the broad language of the arbitration agreements and the incorporation of NASD Code § 35 indicated a 'clear and unmistakable' intent by the parties to arbitrate issues of arbitrability. Furthermore, the court clarified that a general New York choice of law provision in the customer agreements does not override this intent or limit the arbitrators' authority. The decision reinforces a strong public policy favoring comprehensive arbitration and protects consumers from investment houses attempting to evade their own broad arbitration agreements.

Arbitration AgreementSecurities TransactionsArbitrabilityNASD Code Section 15Time BarChoice of LawFederal Arbitration ActCustomer AgreementsInvestment DisputesBrokerage Accounts
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McMahan Securities Co. v. Aviator Master Fund, Ltd.

Petitioner McMahan Securities Co., L.R., a securities broker-dealer, sought to stay an arbitration claim initiated by various hedge funds and institutional investors (respondents) before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), now FINRA. The arbitration claim arose from respondents' purchase of $50 million worth of preferred stock units from nonparties Strategy Real Estate Investments, Ltd. (SREI) and Strategy International Insurance Group, Inc. (SIIG), where McMahan acted as a placement agent. Respondents alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Blue Sky laws, claiming McMahan failed to disclose criminal convictions and legal problems of Strategy's management team and misrepresented Strategy's financial status. McMahan argued that respondents were not its 'customers' under NASD rule 12200 and that a forum selection clause in the subscription agreement precluded arbitration. The court denied McMahan's petition, finding that respondents qualified as McMahan's customers under a broad interpretation of NASD rules and that the dispute arose from McMahan's business activities, thus compelling arbitration. The court also rejected McMahan's attempt to invoke the subscription agreement's forum selection clause, as McMahan was not a signatory to that agreement.

ArbitrationSecurities LawNASD Code of Arbitration ProcedureFINRAPlacement AgentFraud AllegationsNegligent MisrepresentationBlue Sky LawsContract InterpretationForum Selection Clause
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Southern Electronics Co., Inc.

The debtor, Southern Electronics Company, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and proposed to reject its collective bargaining agreement with the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The debtor argued that the seniority provisions of the agreement protected unproductive employees, contributing to financial losses. The court reviewed legal standards for rejecting such agreements, opting for a 'balancing of the equities' test. Despite concerns about the debtor's intransigence and lack of documentation for employee unproductivity, the court found the agreement burdensome due to potential arbitration costs and critical need for reorganization funds contingent on rejection. Ultimately, the court permitted the rejection of the agreement and confirmed the debtor's plan of reorganization, prioritizing the continuation of the business and the interests of current employees and unsecured creditors over the perpetuation of the collective bargaining agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementContract RejectionLabor LawDebtor in PossessionSeniority ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeReorganization PlanEquities Balancing Test
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 3,741 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