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

Rogers v. Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc.

Ronald Rogers, while performing maintenance, fell nine feet from a stationary conveyor system at Agway Feed Mill. He and his wife, Lisa Rogers, sued Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc. and Portee, Inc., alleging negligent design and manufacturing, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and strict products liability. Westfalia, Portee, Probec, Inc., and Mill Technology, Inc. filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to Rogers and their products were not defective. The court found that Agway, the employer and purchaser, was in the best position to assess risks and declined optional safety equipment. Furthermore, Rogers was aware of the dangers, and warnings were posted. Consequently, the court granted all motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, counterclaims, and cross-claims.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict LiabilityDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentConveyor SystemIndustrial AccidentAssumption of RiskOpen and Obvious Danger
References
17
Case No. 03-15-00528-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2015

the Texas Education Agency and Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in His Official Capacity v. Academy of Careers and Technologies, Inc. D/B/A Academy of Careers and Technologies Charter School

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) and Commissioner Michael Williams, acting as appellants, sought to revoke the charter of appellee Academy of Careers and Technologies Charter School (ACT) following three consecutive years of unacceptable financial and academic accountability ratings. ACT challenged this action, alleging violations of its substantive and procedural due process rights, an unconstitutional taking of its property, and ultra vires actions by the Commissioner. The district court denied TEA's plea to the jurisdiction and granted ACT's motion for a temporary injunction, allowing ACT to remain open pending a full trial on the merits, citing significant constitutional questions.

Education LawCharter SchoolTexasDue ProcessProperty RightsInjunctionSovereign ImmunityAccountability RatingsUltra ViresAdministrative Law
References
68
Case No. 06 Civ. 0822(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses two consolidated securities fraud actions against Royal Group Technologies Limited and its officers and directors. The plaintiffs, known as the 'Snow Group', allege a fraudulent scheme involving false and misleading statements to inflate Royal Group's stock price, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Court consolidated the two actions, Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Limited and Messinger v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, under the caption In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litigation. The Snow Group's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff was granted, as they demonstrated the largest financial interest and satisfied Rule 23 requirements for typicality and adequacy. The Court also approved the Snow Group's selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.

Securities FraudClass ActionLead PlaintiffConsolidationPSLRAFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Corporate FraudStock ManipulationInvestor ProtectionExchange Act
References
8
Case No. 01-11-00925-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2012

Aspen Technology, Inc., and David Wood Woodruff v. Hank W. Harrity

This case involves an appeal by Aspen Technology, Inc. and David Woodruff from a trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration against Hank W. Harrity. Harrity, a former employee, sued Aspen Technology and Woodruff for unpaid commissions, arguing the arbitration clause in his employment contract was illusory due to a unilateral modification provision and that his tort claims against Woodruff were not covered. The appellate court analyzed the contract's language, concluding that the arbitration provision was not illusory because modifications required mutual agreement. Furthermore, it determined that Harrity's tort claims against Woodruff, acting as an agent of Aspen Technology, fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementContract ValidityIllusory PromiseEmployment LawMotion to CompelAppellate ReviewFederal Arbitration ActAgent LiabilityTort ClaimsContract Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of El Paso, Mayor Oscar Leeser, City Representatives Emma Acosta, Carl L. Robinson, Michiel R. Noe, Courtney C. Niland, Ann Morgan Lilly, Larry Romero, Claudia Ordaz and Lily Limon v. Waterblasting Technologies, Inc. and Thomas G. Wicker, Jr.

Plaintiffs Waterblasting Technologies, Inc. and Thomas G. Wicker, Jr. sued the City of El Paso, its Mayor, and City Council after the City awarded a bid contract for a water blasting unit to Team Eagle, Inc., instead of to Waterblasting Technologies. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the contract was void and an injunction preventing its performance, alleging violations of Chapter 252 of the Texas Local Government Code. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity and lack of standing, which the trial court denied. On interlocutory appeal, the court concluded that while Section 252.061 waived the City's governmental immunity for injunctions, the contract's full performance rendered the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief moot. Additionally, Waterblasting Technologies, Inc. lacked standing as a bidder because the contract was for equipment, not 'construction of public works.' Thomas G. Wicker, Jr. had standing as a property tax-paying resident. The court also dismissed ultra vires claims against City Officials, as these only allow prospective relief, and the contract was already performed. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed all claims against the City, Mayor, and City Council.

Governmental immunitySubject-matter jurisdictionStandingMootnessUltra vires actsBid contractPublic worksTexas Local Government CodeInterlocutory appealDeclaratory judgment
References
70
Case No. 01-10-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Microcheck Systems. Inc v. Microcheck Systems, Inc., Chris Zigrossi, Scott Murphy, Mike Smith, Individually and D/B/A CMS Technology AKA CMS Technologies, Michoice Technology Systems, Inc., Jim Hayden, Alex Campbell and Jason Jablecki

Appellants MicroCheck Systems, Inc., MicroCheck Solutions, Inc., and John Manning challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to reinstate a case dismissed for want of prosecution. Their attorney, Scarlett May, failed to appear at a docket call due to a mistaken belief that she had been replaced by new counsel, Patrick Hubbard. The trial court denied the motion, stating a policy against missing docket calls. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by not applying the correct legal standard, which requires reinstatement if the failure to appear was due to accident or mistake and not conscious indifference. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionMotion to ReinstateAbuse of DiscretionAttorney ErrorMistake of CounselConscious IndifferenceTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 165aAppellate ReviewSubstitution of CounselTrial Court Discretion
References
11
Case No. 222 AD2d 184
Regular Panel Decision

Nuzzo v. Griffin Technology Inc.

Plaintiffs Karen L. Patzer and Patricia E. Nuzzo, employees of Syracuse University (SU), were injured while operating a cash register manufactured by Griffin Technology Incorporated (Griffin). SU, contractually an additional insured under Griffin's liability policy with Federal Insurance Company (Federal), sought coverage after being impleaded by Griffin. Federal retroactively added SU as an additional insured but subsequently disclaimed coverage based on an employer's liability exclusion. The court ruled Federal's four-month delay in disclaiming coverage to SU was untimely, making the exclusion inapplicable. Consequently, the antisubrogation rule required dismissal of Griffin's third-party actions against SU, and SU's counterclaims for breach of contract were dismissed as moot.

Untimely DisclaimerAdditional InsuredEmployer's Liability ExclusionAntisubrogation RuleContractual Duty to InsureRetroactive CoverageSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIndemnificationContribution
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trico Technologies Corp. v. Montiel

The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether the "after-acquired evidence doctrine" applies to retaliatory discharge claims under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The doctrine concerns evidence of employee misconduct discovered post-discharge. Juan Montiel, Jr.'s estate sued Trico Technologies Corp. for retaliatory discharge after he was fired following a workers' compensation claim; Trico later found Montiel had falsified his employment application. The Court rejected the complete bar approach previously adopted by some Texas courts, opting instead for the doctrine to serve as a limitation on an employee's damages, aligning with McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co. The judgment of the court of appeals, which remanded the case to the trial court, was affirmed, with instructions that Montiel’s misconduct should be considered when determining the amount of damages.

After-acquired evidence doctrineRetaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensationEmployment fraudFalsified applicationDamage limitationSummary judgment reversalRemandTexas Supreme CourtEmployee misconduct
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schlumberger Technology Corp. v. Swanson

This case involves a commercial dispute where John Swanson and George E. Swanson Enterprises (the Swansons) sued Schlumberger Technology Corporation and Schlumberger Limited, Inc. (Schlumberger) for fraudulent inducement related to a settlement agreement. The Swansons alleged that Schlumberger misrepresented the viability of a sea-diamond mining project, leading them to sell their interest at an undervalued price. The Texas Supreme Court reviewed the lower courts' decisions, ultimately reversing the court of appeals and rendering judgment for Schlumberger. The Court held that the release signed by the Swansons contained a clear and unequivocal disclaimer of reliance on Schlumberger's representations, which legally precluded their claims of fraudulent inducement, common-law fraud by non-disclosure, and statutory fraud under the Texas Business and Commerce Code. The Court further determined that no partnership or confidential fiduciary relationship existed between the parties, and thus, Schlumberger owed no fiduciary duty. Consequently, the trial court's judgment notwithstanding the verdict against the Swansons was deemed proper.

Fraudulent InducementContractual ReleaseDisclaimer of RelianceFiduciary DutyPartnership LawCommercial LitigationSettlement AgreementMisrepresentationNon-disclosureStatutory Fraud
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holt v. Preload Technology, Inc.

Arnold Holt, a quadriplegic due to a sixty-foot fall while working for Preload Technology, Inc., sued his employer for gross negligence, challenging the constitutionality of the Workers' Compensation Act which bars such suits. Holt argued for the application of the dual capacity doctrine, claiming the employer acted as both employer and architect-engineer. The trial court dismissed the suit, sustaining exceptions based on the Act's exclusive remedy provisions. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the dual capacity doctrine and finding no violation of constitutional rights, asserting that any exceptions to the Workers' Compensation Act must be created by the legislature, not the courts.

Workers' CompensationDual Capacity DoctrineEmployer ImmunityConstitutional ChallengeGross NegligenceExclusive RemedyDue ProcessOpen Courts ProvisionTexas LawWorkplace Injury
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 244 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