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

Eastman v. Baker Recovery Services (In Re Eastman)

Shane E. Eastman, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding against Baker Recovery Services and the Law Offices of Juana Trejo. He sought a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and damages, alleging that the defendants violated his discharge injunction, the FDCPA, TDCA, DTPA, and committed intentional infliction of emotional distress by attempting to collect a discharged debt. The court ruled that the defendants indeed violated the Bankruptcy Code's discharge injunction, the FDCPA, and the TDCA, particularly through their actions in filing a lawsuit in California. Consequently, the court granted Eastman's request for an injunction, awarded statutory damages of $1,000, and ordered the defendants to pay attorney's fees and costs. However, Eastman's claims for actual damages were denied due to insufficient proof, and his DTPA and tort claims were dismissed, the former for lack of standing and the latter for failing to meet the required intent threshold.

Bankruptcy DischargeDebt CollectionFDCPA ViolationTDCA ViolationDischarge InjunctionStatutory DamagesAttorneys' FeesDeclaratory JudgmentDefault JudgmentAdversary Proceeding
References
39
Case No. 04-14-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Burton Kahn v. Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc.

Burton Kahn, former president of Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc., was terminated for misconduct in August 2013. In retaliation, Kahn allegedly transferred over $340,000 from Helvetia's accounts, recorded fraudulent warranty deeds conveying Helvetia's real estate to his new corporation, Paradiv Corporation, and falsely claimed to be Helvetia's sole shareholder. Helvetia sued Kahn for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, money had and received, and slander of title. A jury found in favor of Helvetia, awarding substantial actual and exemplary damages. Kahn subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, during which his non-exempt assets, including his appellate rights in this case, were sold to Helvetia by the bankruptcy trustee. This brief, filed by Helvetia, argues that Kahn lacks standing to pursue this appeal due to the sale of his appellate rights, effectively rendering the appeal moot, and that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent DeedsAsset MisappropriationAppellate Rights SaleBankruptcy EstateCollateral EstoppelTexas LawCivil LitigationCorporate MalfeasanceInjunctive Relief
References
112
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Missouri Valley, Inc. v. Putman

Haskell B. Putman, Jr., an employee of Missouri Valley, Inc., died after falling through an unbarricaded hole at a construction site in Potter County. His beneficiaries, including his widow Juanita Lucille Putman, brought a wrongful death action seeking exemplary damages from Missouri Valley, Inc., alleging gross negligence. The jury found Missouri Valley, Inc. guilty of gross negligence and awarded $50,000 in exemplary damages. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding insufficient evidence to support the gross negligence findings. The court clarified that Texas law requires an "entire want of care" or "conscious indifference" to justify exemplary damages, which was not met given Missouri Valley's established safety program, thereby negating the recovery of exemplary damages.

Wrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer LiabilityOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)Construction AccidentAppellate ReviewConscious IndifferenceSafety Program
References
7
Case No. 03-03-00580-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2004

McManus-Wyatt Produce Co., Inc., D/B/A McManus-Wyatt Produce Marketing Co., Inc. v. Texas Department of Agriculture Produce Recovery Fund Board Eddy Carnes Carnes Farms, Inc. And Allen Carnes

McManus-Wyatt Produce Co. appealed a district court order affirming a decision by the Texas Department of Agriculture Produce Recovery Fund Board. The Board had awarded Carnes damages for a breach-of-contract complaint against McManus. McManus argued that the Board's administrative determination violated its state constitutional right to a jury trial for a breach-of-contract claim. The appellate court agreed, finding that the administrative scheme completely abrogated this right, which was established prior to the 1876 Texas Constitution. Consequently, the court held the Board's order unconstitutional as applied to McManus, reversing the district court's final order and vacating the Board's decision.

Jury Trial RightConstitutional ViolationBreach of ContractAdministrative Due ProcessProduce Recovery FundTexas Constitution Article I Section 15Appellate Court ReviewStatutory SchemeAgriculture LawDe Novo Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lavender v. Hofer

This personal injury case originated from an intersection collision resulting in the death of June Hofer. The initial defendant, Robert W. Springate, passed away, leading to his daughter, Sharon Lavender, being substituted as his personal representative. The core issues on appeal involved the recovery of punitive damages against the deceased tort-feasor's estate and the appellees' (June Hofer's parents) entitlement to damages for mental anguish and loss of companionship. The appellate court determined that punitive damages are not recoverable against a deceased tort-feasor's estate, reasoning that the purposes of punishment and deterrence cease upon death. However, the court affirmed the award for mental anguish and loss of companionship, citing a recent Texas Supreme Court decision.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathPunitive DamagesExemplary DamagesSurvival StatuteMental AnguishLoss of CompanionshipDeceased Tort-feasor EstateAppellate ReviewDamages Award
References
63
Case No. M2021-01504-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2025

Charles Youree, Jr. v. Recovery House of East Tennessee, LLC

Charles Youree, Jr. filed a lawsuit against Recovery House of East Tennessee, LLC (RHET) and RHT Holdings, LLC, seeking to pierce the corporate veil to hold them liable for a prior default judgment obtained against Recovery Solutions Network, LLC (RSN). The trial court initially granted a default judgment, applying the 'Allen factors'. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 'Continental Bankers elements' were the correct framework for piercing the corporate veil. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, clarifying that the three Continental Bankers elements provide the correct standard in all corporate veil-piercing contexts, while the Allen factors are merely relevant circumstances. The Supreme Court found the complaint failed to sufficiently plead the 'fraud or wrong' and 'causation' elements, thus failing to articulate a claim for piercing the corporate veil. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Corporate Veil PiercingLimited LiabilityDefault JudgmentAppellate ReviewRule 59.04 MotionContinental Bankers ElementsAllen FactorsParent-Subsidiary LiabilityPleading StandardsCorporate Separateness
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. v. Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas), L.P.

This case addresses the proper method for compensating a landowner for the destruction of trees on their property. Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. (Wheeler) sued Enbridge Pipelines, L.P. (Enbridge) for breach of contract and trespass after Enbridge destroyed several hundred feet of trees while constructing a pipeline, violating an agreement to use an underground boring method. The Texas Supreme Court clarifies the application of the temporary-versus-permanent injury distinction to real property damages, holding it applies to both tort and contract claims and is a question of law for the court. The Court confirms two exceptions to general damage rules: the economic feasibility exception, deeming the injury permanent due to restoration costs significantly exceeding market value diminution, and the intrinsic value of trees exception, allowing recovery for ornamental and utilitarian value even with nominal market value loss. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to address remaining issues consistent with this opinion.

Real Property DamagesBreach of ContractTrespassTree DestructionTemporary vs. Permanent InjuryDamages CalculationEconomic Feasibility ExceptionIntrinsic Value of TreesAppellate ReviewJury Instructions
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casale v. Unipunch, Inc.

This case concerns a plaintiff seeking recovery for emotional distress and pecuniary damages after witnessing the electrocution of a co-worker at a defendant's work site. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the emotional distress claim, while the defendant cross-appealed the denial of dismissing the pecuniary damages claim. The court reviewed New York's bystander recovery rules, emphasizing that recovery for emotional injury from witnessing harm to a third person is generally precluded. The court found that the plaintiff did not meet the 'zone of danger' exception from Bovsun v Sanperi because the injured party was not an immediate family member. Consequently, both the emotional distress and the associated pecuniary damages claims were dismissed, modifying the lower court's order.

Emotional DistressPecuniary DamagesBystander RecoveryZone of DangerNegligenceCo-worker InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate LawDuty of CareNew York Law
References
8
Case No. 06-24-00073-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2025

Jennifer Cambas and Lawrence Cambas v. Trinity Roofing & Restoration, LLC

Jennifer and Lawrence Cambas (Appellants) appealed a jury verdict in favor of Trinity Roofing & Restoration, LLC (Appellee) from the 57th District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The Cambases had hired Trinity for water damage repairs and later requested voluntary upgrades and a roof repair. Disputes arose regarding the completion timeframe and quality of work, leading to the Cambases stopping payments and Trinity suing for breach of contract and quantum meruit. The Cambases counterclaimed for various contract and fraud-related issues. The jury found that the Cambases materially breached the written contract first, Trinity substantially performed, and awarded Trinity damages for breach of contract and quantum meruit for the oral agreement. On appeal, the Cambases challenged the sufficiency of evidence for breach, Trinity's right to recovery, quantum meruit recovery, and attorney fees. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings, Trinity's right to recovery was not barred, quantum meruit recovery was not barred, and Trinity was entitled to attorney fees.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitSubstantial PerformanceMaterial BreachAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewTexas LawConstruction ContractHome Renovation
References
35
Case No. 10-12-00111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2013

Daniel Wayne Steele and Robert Dwayne Steele v. Tyson Goddard and Mylea Goddard

The case involves an appeal by Daniel Wayne Steele and Robert Dwayne Steele (Appellants) against Tyson Goddard and Mylea Goddard (Appellees) concerning a jury verdict in a real property sale dispute in Navarro County, Texas. The Goddards had alleged fraud, negligence, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations due to undisclosed termite damage and wood rot in a house purchased from Daniel Steele. The jury found both Daniel and Robert liable, awarding substantial damages. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence for Robert's liability under DTPA, negligence, and fraud, reversing the judgment against him. The court affirmed parts of the judgment against Daniel, suggested a remittitur for a portion of the damages representing a double recovery, and modified the judgment to reflect the Goddards' election of recovery solely under the DTPA.

Real estateproperty saletermite damagewood rotDeceptive Trade Practices Actfraudnegligencejury verdictappellate reviewdamages
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 4,822 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