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
Nov 10, 2008

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio

Plaintiff SD Protection, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against defendant Edward Del Rio. Over two years, SD Protection repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, including monetary sanctions totaling $1,000 imposed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Despite multiple opportunities and warnings, SD Protection refused to pay the fines or comply with the court's directives. District Judge Mauskopf ultimately held SD Protection in civil contempt for its obstructionist behavior and non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of SD Protection's claims and will award Del Rio reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's contempt, while declining to impose civil arrest due to jurisdictional limitations on serving such an order.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsBreach of ContractNon-complianceCourt OrdersMonetary FinesDismissal of ComplaintCompensatory RemedyJurisdictional LimitsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. 09-24-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2026

Universal Protection Service, LP D/B/A Allied Universal Security and Universal Protection Service GP, Inc. v. the Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC

Universal Protection Services, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security (Allied) and The Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC (TWM) were parties to a Security Agreement. A patron, Penny Prater, sued both Allied and TWM, along with other entities, for negligence after a robbery in the mall parking lot, alleging failures in security services and training. Allied and TWM filed competing motions for summary judgment regarding Allied's contractual duty to defend TWM, which Allied had refused. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWM, finding that Allied had a duty to defend TWM based on the Agreement's terms and Illinois law. Allied appealed this decision, arguing the contract's indemnification provision did not require it to defend TWM for TWM's own alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the contractual provision clearly required Allied to defend TWM when the alleged acts of negligence or failures resulted from its provision of security services.

Contract InterpretationDuty to DefendIndemnification AgreementSecurity ServicesNegligence ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois Contract LawTexas Civil ProcedureBreach of Contract
References
21
Case No. E2013-02132-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2014

Cleveland Custom Stone v. Acuity Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal from a Chancery Court decision concerning an insurance dispute. Plaintiffs, Cleveland Custom Stone, Inc. and Steve's Stone Works, sued Acuity Mutual Insurance Company after it refused to pay insurance proceeds following a fire that destroyed their building. They alleged negligence, breach of contract, bad faith refusal to pay, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. A jury awarded compensatory damages and found a TCPA violation, but no punitive damages. The trial court affirmed the verdict, but did not treble the damages. Acuity appealed several issues, including the denial of summary judgment, directed verdict, and the jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient material evidence to support the jury's verdict and no error in the jury instructions or the denial of treble damages.

Insurance CoverageBreach of ContractNegligenceBad Faith Refusal to PayTennessee Consumer Protection ActAgency AgreementCertificate of InsuranceFire LossJury VerdictDirected Verdict
References
21
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01170 [191 AD3d 1203]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2021

Matter of City of Troy (Troy Police Benevolent & Protective Assn., Inc.)

The City of Troy appealed a Supreme Court order that denied its application to permanently stay arbitration and granted the Troy Police Benevolent and Protective Association, Inc.'s cross-motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose from the City's alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by failing to fill a vacant captain position within 30 days from a civil service list. The City argued that the CBA provision conflicted with Civil Service Law § 61 (1) and public policy. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the CBA provision did not violate Civil Service Law § 61 or public policy, as the City voluntarily agreed to a time frame for promotion and retained discretion to choose from the top three candidates. The Court also determined that standing and compliance with grievance procedures were matters for the arbitrator.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCivil Service LawPublic PolicyPromotional PracticesMunicipal CorporationPolice DepartmentGrievanceStay ArbitrationCompel Arbitration
References
24
Case No. 03-22-00071-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2023

Jonathan Timothy Noyes v. the State of Texas for the Protection of Samantha Jo Voges

Jonathan Timothy Noyes appeals a lifetime protective order issued against him for the protection of his ex-girlfriend, Samantha Jo Voges. Noyes challenged the order on five grounds, asserting the district court failed to make required fact findings, that the evidence was insufficient, that his communication was constitutionally protected speech, that the underlying harassment statute was unconstitutionally vague, and that the court abused its discretion by excluding evidence. The State filed an application for a protective order after Voges reported thousands of threatening text messages, calls from blocked and spoofed numbers, and social media harassment from Noyes following their breakup. Voges testified about Noyes's controlling behavior, physical altercations, and fear for her safety due to threats to ruin her life, disclose private information, and access her accounts. A detective's investigation confirmed Noyes sent over 1,500 messages, used multiple numbers and emails, installed a tracking device on Voges's car, and attempted to access her bank account, leading to his arrest for stalking. The appellate court affirmed the district court's finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe Voges was a victim of stalking, thus upholding the protective order.

StalkingProtective OrderHarassmentElectronic CommunicationDomestic ViolenceAppellate ReviewEvidence SufficiencyFirst AmendmentDue ProcessFirearm Prohibition
References
19
Case No. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
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
Showing 1-10 of 3,294 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