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

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. Littleton

Jackie and Cheryl Woods sued B. L. Littleton and Joe S. Thomson, doing business as Superior Construction Company, for defective sewer systems and faulty repairs, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found the Act applicable and actions deceptive but declined to treble damages. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded, questioning the Act's applicability. This court affirmed the remand, ruling that the Act applies to deceptive practices occurring after its effective date (May 21, 1973), even if the initial sale was earlier, and that treble damages are mandatory once liability is established. The case was remanded for a retrial to determine actual damages solely attributable to post-effective date deceptive practices, which must then be trebled.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer ProtectionMandatory Treble DamagesStatutory InterpretationRemand for RetrialSewer System DefectsFaulty Repair ServiceReal Estate TransactionPost-Effective Date ApplicabilityMental Anguish Damages
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Health Enterprises, Inc. v. Gentry

Sharon Gentry, an employee of Deerings nursing home, sued her employer for a back injury sustained on the job in May 1988. Gentry claimed negligence, breach of contract, and deceptive trade practices under the Texas Insurance Code. The jury found against negligence but in favor of Gentry for breach of contract and deceptive practices. Deerings, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, had an employee handbook that listed 'WORKERS’ COMPENSATION' as a benefit, which Gentry interpreted as comparable to state benefits. Deerings denied Gentry's medical expenses after she refused to see their choice of doctor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding the contract findings but reversed and rendered judgment for Deerings on the deceptive trade practice claim, stating Deerings was not engaged in the business of insurance.

Non-subscriber EmployerBreach of ContractDeceptive Trade PracticesEmployment DisputeMedical Expense DisputeEmployee BenefitsTexas Insurance CodeAppellate DecisionJob InjuryEmployer Policy
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Vavro

The State of Texas appealed the trial court's decision to grant David G. Vavro's motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdict. The Attorney General, through the Consumer Protection Division, initially sued Vavro and other entities for alleged deceptive trade practices in selling discount travel club memberships. At trial, the jury found Vavro engaged in false, misleading, and deceptive acts or practices after March 8, 2003, and assessed civil penalties and attorney's fees. However, the trial judge granted Vavro's motion, concluding there was legally insufficient evidence to establish his individual liability for acts occurring within the timeframe limited by the jury charge's statute of limitations instruction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concurring that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Vavro engaged in deceptive practices after March 8, 2003, despite evidence of his general involvement in the business and the overall fraudulent nature of the travel club sales.

Deceptive Trade PracticesConsumer Protection ActJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceStatute of LimitationsFraudulent SalesTravel Club MembershipsCorporate LiabilityAppellate ProcedureBusiness Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hopkins v. Highlands Insurance Co.

Charles Milton Hopkins (Appellant) was fired by Magnolia Coca-Cola Bottling Company after Highlands Insurance Co. and Goodman-Watson Insurance Agency, Inc. (Appellees) excluded him from an insurance policy due to his driving record. Hopkins sued, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, tortious interference with a contractual relationship, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Appellees. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment regarding the Deceptive Trade Practices Act for both Appellees and the breach of duty claim against Watson Agency. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment against Highlands Insurance Co. for tortious interference and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, finding issues of material fact regarding Highlands' justification for exclusion based on its own guidelines and DOT regulations.

Deceptive Trade PracticesTortious InterferenceContractual RelationshipBreach of Good FaithFair DealingSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageDriving RecordExclusion from PolicyAffirmative Defense
References
21
Case No. 18-CV-0361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2018

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. McDonnell

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Patrick McDonnell and his company, CabbageTech, Corp. d/b/a Coin Drop Markets (CDM), alleging a deceptive and fraudulent virtual currency scheme. The defendants were accused of offering fraudulent trading and investment services related to virtual currency, misappropriating investor funds, and misrepresenting trading advice and future profits. The primary legal questions involved the CFTC's standing to sue and whether virtual currencies are considered commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The court affirmed both questions, finding that virtual currencies function as commodities and that the CFTC has jurisdiction over fraud in underlying spot markets, not just derivatives. Consequently, the court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the CFTC and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding there was a reasonable likelihood of continued CEA violations without the injunction.

Virtual CurrencyBitcoinLitecoinCommodity Exchange ActCFTC JurisdictionFraudMisappropriationPreliminary InjunctionSpot Market RegulationFinancial Technology
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesware, Incorporated v. State

The Attorney General of Texas sought injunctive relief against Wesware, Incorporated for operating a 'pyramid selling scheme' in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The district court issued a temporary injunction, which Wesware appealed. The appellate court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding sufficient evidence of deceptive trade practices and that the scheme constituted a lottery. The court rejected Wesware's arguments that the plan was fully explained, thus not deceptive, and that the injunction was too broad or violated procedural rules. The decision emphasized that the 'pyramiding of chance upon chance' was the gravamen of the scheme, justifying the injunction.

Deceptive Trade PracticesPyramid SchemeTemporary InjunctionLotteryAbuse of DiscretionReferral SalesTexas LawConsumer ProtectionInterlocutory AppealState Attorney General
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Needle Trades Workers' Industrial Union

The indictment charges the defendants, including the Needle Trades Workers’ Industrial Union, with violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by conspiring to restrain interstate trade in raw skins. The conspiracy involved preventing non-union dressers from processing skins and dealers from shipping to them, employing violent tactics such as threats, assaults, destruction of property, and the use of explosives. The court addressed whether these actions constituted a restraint of interstate commerce, differentiating between local strikes with indirect effects and direct interference with interstate trade. It concluded that the alleged prevention of New York dealers from shipping skins to New Jersey dressers constituted a direct, substantial, and intentional interference with interstate commerce. The court also affirmed that shipping goods for processing across state lines is considered interstate commerce and clarified that the National Industrial Recovery Act did not repeal the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or legalize such a conspiracy. Consequently, the demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the indictment was overruled.

Sherman Anti-Trust ActInterstate CommerceLabor UnionConspiracyDemurrerIndictmentTrade RestraintViolenceSecondary BoycottLabor Disputes
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beaudreau v. Larry Hill Pontiac/Oldsmobile/GMC

Patrick Beaudreau filed a class action lawsuit against Larry Hill Pontiac/Oldsmobile/GMC, Inc., alleging that the car dealer violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the Tennessee Trade Practices Act by failing to disclose a "dealer reserve" arrangement with General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC). Beaudreau claimed Hill Pontiac received a portion of the interest rate charged on his car loan, which he argued was a deceptive practice. The trial court dismissed Beaudreau's claims, finding no unlawful conduct. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the practice of dealer reserve, without additional deceptive conduct, does not violate the TCPA, TTPA, or constitute unjust enrichment or civil conspiracy, as consumers are aware of the total interest rate and are free to seek alternative financing. The court also noted that the TTPA is not applicable to services like arranging financing.

Consumer ProtectionDealer ReserveAutomobile FinancingDeceptive PracticesTennessee Consumer Protection ActTennessee Trade Practices ActCivil ConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentMoney Had and ReceivedAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Avila v. State

Samuel and Nilsa Avila, operating as Mundo Latino, appealed a judgment and permanent injunction issued after a jury trial initiated by the State of Texas under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). The Avilas, who assisted Spanish-speaking individuals with immigration and tax matters without proper licensing, were found to have engaged in false, misleading, and deceptive practices. The jury found they unlawfully counseled on immigration and acted as notaries in prohibited ways. The trial court ordered them to pay $60,000 each for restitution and $100,000 each in penalties, plus attorneys’ fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment and permanent injunction but modified the injunction by deleting an overbroad paragraph that restricted the Avilas' access to all financial assets, including those from legitimate business activities.

Unauthorized Practice of LawDeceptive Trade PracticesConsumer ProtectionImmigration ServicesNotary Public ViolationsPermanent InjunctionRestitutionCivil PenaltiesSufficiency of EvidenceHearsay Exception
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 7,972 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