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

Lee v. Lee

This is an appeal in a divorce case concerning Berta Margarita de Los Rios Lee (Wife) and Daniel Mark Lee (Husband). The wife was awarded custody of their minor son, William Alvaro Lee, after filing for divorce in Shelby County Chancery Court on grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. The husband appealed the trial court's decision regarding custody, division of a retirement account, and attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's rulings on custody, division of marital property including retirement benefits, and the award of attorney fees to the wife. The court found that the husband waived several constitutional and due process arguments by not raising them at the trial court level. It also upheld the trial court's exercise of judicial discretion in issuing injunctions, temporary custody, and visitation orders. The case was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of visitation arrangements due to a change in the child's school schedule.

DivorceChild CustodyVisitation RightsMarital Property DivisionAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionParental RightsSpousal AbuseDue Process
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Daniels v. Travelers Insurance Co.

Robert Lee Daniels appealed a summary judgment rendered in favor of The Travelers Insurance Company, the worker's compensation insurance carrier for Daniels’ employer. Daniels initially filed a claim for compensation in 1978, and a final award was issued without mention of medical expenses. Later, Daniels filed a claim with the Industrial Accident Board for medical bills incurred prior to the final award, which the Board denied as untimely. Daniels appealed this ruling to the County Court at Law, which granted Travelers’ motion for summary judgment. The appellate court determined that the Board's denial was a jurisdictional dismissal, meaning neither the Board nor the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the untimely claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction.

Worker's CompensationJurisdictional DismissalSummary Judgment AppealTimely FilingIndustrial Accident BoardMedical Expense ClaimFinal AwardAppellate ReviewTexas LawWant of Jurisdiction
References
4
Case No. 14-18-00062-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2019

Michael Lee Wyrick A/K/A Mike Wyrick and Gregory Michael Ruhnke A/K/A Greg Ruhnke v. Business Bank of Texas, N. A.

This case involves two individual guarantors, Michael Lee Wyrick and Gregory Michael Ruhnke, appealing a trial court's summary judgment that enforced their $3 million promissory note guaranty in favor of Business Bank of Texas, N.A., and dismissed their tort claims. The guarantors argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment due to contract defenses like fraudulent inducement and mutual mistake, and affirmative counterclaims including fraud and tortious interference. The appellate court found the guarantors lacked standing for some counterclaims and failed to raise fact issues for others and their defenses. The court also reviewed a permanent anti-suit injunction issued by the trial court, concluding it was an abuse of discretion as the circumstances did not warrant such extraordinary relief. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the guaranties and counterclaims, but modified it to dissolve the anti-suit injunction.

Guaranty enforcementPromissory noteSummary judgment appealFraudulent inducementNegligent misrepresentationMutual mistakeEquitable estoppelTortious interferenceNegligence claimsGross negligence claims
References
76
Case No. 03-11-00066-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2012

M. Lawrence Naumann and Naumann Farm, LLC v. Edward R. Lee and Wife, Josephine R. Lee Edward J. Lee and Wife, Zenaida Lee Robert D. Norris and Wife, Dana K. Norris Diana Toler and Von Toler

M. Lawrence Naumann and Naumann Farm, LLC (Appellants) appealed a trial court's summary judgment in an easement dispute. The trial court had ruled that Naumann possessed only a limited easement to access a portion of his property, invalidating an easement for the remainder, and had also awarded attorney's fees to the appellees. Naumann challenged these decisions, arguing errors in the denial of their motion, the granting of appellees' cross-motion, the permanent injunction, and the attorney's fee award. The Court of Appeals reviewed the judgment, including the application of the "strip and gore" doctrine, and affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety. The court concluded that the trial court did not err in its declaratory summary judgment, the permanent injunction, or the award of attorney's fees to the appellees.

Easement disputeSummary judgmentAppellate reviewProperty lawStrip and gore doctrineDeed constructionDeclaratory reliefInjunctive reliefAttorney's feesTexas Court of Appeals
References
48
Case No. 05-22-00932-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2024

Dallas County, Texas v. Tim Sutton A/K/A Timothy Sutton A/K/A Timothy L. Sutton A/K/A Timothy Lee Sutton

Dallas County mistakenly paid Tim Sutton an excess of $10,035.23 after a constable's execution sale in October 2016. Sutton claimed he attempted to return the funds, but the County refused. After realizing the mistake, the County repaid the judgment debtor, Rodriguez, in November 2020 and subsequently sued Sutton in December 2020 for money had and received and unjust enrichment. Sutton moved for summary judgment, arguing the County's claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The County contended it was exempt from limitations under section 16.061(a) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The trial court granted Sutton's motion and denied the County's. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the County's claim was a subrogation claim derived from Rodriguez's rights, and thus the County was subject to Sutton's limitations defense, which had expired.

Statute of LimitationsSubrogation LawUnjust EnrichmentMoney Had and ReceivedExecution Sale ProceedsAppellate Court DecisionTexas Civil ProcedureGovernmental ExemptionSummary Judgment AppealMistaken Payment Recovery
References
26
Case No. E2001-00605-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2002

Curtis Daniels v. Mary Daniels

This appellate case, Curtis Michael Daniels v. Mary Freels Daniels, concerns the division of marital property and alimony in a divorce. Mary Freels Daniels appealed the trial court's decision regarding her share of Mr. Daniels' retirement benefits, the overall marital estate division, and her eligibility for rehabilitative alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's division of marital assets and the denial of rehabilitative alimony. However, it reversed and remanded the decision concerning Mr. Daniels' unvested TVA pension, ruling it a marital asset subject to equitable division, and provided guidelines for its valuation.

Divorce LawMarital AssetsPension RightsUnvested BenefitsAlimonySpousal SupportProperty DivisionEquitable DistributionAppellate ProcedureRemand
References
20
Case No. 2019-03475; Docket Nos. B-762-18, B-763-18, B-764-18, B-765-18
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2020

Matter of Margaret K.K. (Alicia A.)

Alicia A. (mother) appealed the Family Court of Rockland County's order terminating her parental rights to her four children due to mental illness. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal concerning two children (William K. and Margaret K. K.) as academic because they had reached the age of majority. For the remaining children, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding clear and convincing evidence that the mother's mental illnesses (bipolar disorder, ADHD, and PTSD) rendered her unable to provide proper care. The court also determined that the mother received effective assistance of counsel, despite counsel not attending a court-ordered psychological examination, given counsel's detailed cross-examination of the evaluator and securing an independent psychiatric evaluation. The decision upheld the termination of parental rights for the children still under the court's jurisdiction.

Parental Rights TerminationMental Illness GroundIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewSocial Services Law § 384-bFamily Court ActChild NeglectBipolar DisorderPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAttention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder
References
17
Case No. NO. 02-14-00148-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2015

Brian K. Haren and Susan K. Haren F/K/A Susan C. Carley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Appellants Brian K. Haren and Susan K. Haren appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The Harens had defaulted on a property note, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and failed to disclose claims against Wells Fargo as assets. Later, in response to a lawsuit by Wells Fargo, they filed counterclaims alleging breach of contract, unreasonable collection efforts, and violations of the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding judicial estoppel applicable due to the Harens' nondisclosure during bankruptcy. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the Harens' position in this lawsuit was inconsistent with their bankruptcy disclosures, the bankruptcy court accepted their nondisclosure, and their failure to disclose was not inadvertent as they had knowledge of the facts supporting their claims and a financial motive to conceal them.

BankruptcyJudicial EstoppelSummary JudgmentNondisclosureChapter 13Real PropertyForeclosureDebt CollectionTexas LawAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. 14-15-00787-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2015

Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. v. Tyler Lee and Leigh Ann Lee, Individually and as Next Friend of Sydney Rose Lee, Minor

This civil appeal originates from a personal injury jury trial. The appellant, Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc., is appealing a trial court judgment that awarded the appellees, Tyler Lee and Leigh Ann Lee, actual damages of $35,443,006.00 and punitive damages of $8,500,000.00. Key issues to be raised on appeal include the Workers' Compensation bar, election of remedies, intentional injury exception, and gross negligence, with de novo and sufficiency of the evidence as applicable standards for review.

Personal InjuryJury TrialMoney JudgmentAppellate LawWorkers' Compensation BarElection of RemediesIntentional Injury ExceptionGross NegligenceTexas Court of AppealsDamages Awarded
References
1
Case No. 4:87-CV-097-A
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1992

Lee Ex Rel. Estate of Lee v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Winston Lee sued Delta Air Lines for the wrongful death of his wife, Alyson Lee, a flight attendant who died in a 1985 plane crash in Texas. Lee alleged negligence and sought actual and exemplary damages. Delta moved for summary judgment, asserting that Florida's Workers' Compensation Law, which covered Alyson Lee as a Florida-based employee, provided the exclusive remedy. The court, applying Texas choice-of-law rules, determined that Florida had the most significant relationship to the employer-employee relationship and the specific issue of workers' compensation immunity. Finding that Florida's exclusive remedy provision did not violate Texas public policy, the court granted Delta's motion for summary judgment, denying plaintiff's claims and dismissing the action.

Workers' CompensationChoice of LawConflict of LawsSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyAirplane CrashFlorida LawTexas LawEmployment RelationshipWrongful Death
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 1,598 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