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

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

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

Galveston County Fair & Rodeo v. Kauffman

Travis Kauffman entered his steer "Reebok" in The Galveston County Fair and Rodeo steer show. After winning a class, the steer was later disqualified due to allegations of "airing," an unethical fitting practice. Daniel S. Kauffman, Jr., Travis's father, sued the Fair alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence. A jury found in favor of Kauffman on all claims, with recovery elected under the DTPA. The Fair appealed, challenging aspects of the jury charge, evidence sufficiency, damages, consumer status under DTPA, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment but modified it by deleting a $1,500 damage award related to negligence.

DTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActNegligenceBreach of ContractSteer DisqualificationAnimal Show EthicsConsumer ProtectionAppellate ReviewDamagesMental Anguish
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. Cullum Companies, Inc.

Dovie Irene Henry appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Cullum Companies, Inc. (Tom Thumb) in a slip-and-fall negligence case. Henry initially sought recovery under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), alleging misrepresentations about the safety of the store's floors. The trial court granted a partial summary judgment, ruling that premises liability cases were not within the purview of the DTPA. Henry subsequently removed the DTPA claims from her pleadings. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, distinguishing between services as the primary objective of a bargain and incidental services like the use of store floors, concluding that the latter do not fall under the DTPA's definition of services "furnished in connection with the sale of goods." Thus, Henry was not considered a "consumer" under the DTPA for her injury related to the store's floors.

Summary JudgmentDeceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer StatusPremises LiabilitySlip and FallGoods and ServicesIncidental UseTexas Business and Commerce CodeAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
16
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. 11-06-00187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2008

Law Offices of Miller & Bicklein v. Deep East Texas Self-Insurance Fund and Risk Management Services

The Law Offices of Miller & Bicklein sued Deep East Texas Self-Insurance Fund and Risk Management Services over attorney's fees under Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 417.003, along with claims for unfair insurance practices and Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act violations. The trial court awarded Miller & Bicklein a partial amount for attorney's fees under Section 417.003 but granted summary judgment against them on the other claims. Miller & Bicklein appealed, arguing error in the summary judgment and refusal to award additional attorney's fees. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders, finding no error in the summary judgment regarding DTPA and insurance practices claims, and no abuse of discretion in denying additional attorney's fees under the Declaratory Judgments Act.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentDTPAUnfair Insurance PracticesDeclaratory Judgments ActAppellate ReviewSubrogation InterestLegal EthicsTexas Jurisprudence
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tweedell v. Hochheim Prairie Farm Mutual Insurance Ass'n

This case involves independent insurance agents, John Twee-dell, Don Hicks, and Billy D. White, who sued the Hochheim Companies and their officers after their sales representative and agency contracts were terminated. The agents alleged breach of fiduciary duties, violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), and article 21.21 of the Insurance Code. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling the agents lacked standing. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment on the DTPA and breach of fiduciary duties claims, concluding the agents were not "consumers" under the DTPA. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on the article 21.21 claim, holding that insurance agents, as "persons" engaged in the business of insurance, do have standing to sue for damages under article 21.21, section 4.

Insurance LawAgent TerminationDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Insurance Code Article 21.21Standing to SueSummary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyAppellate ReviewInsurance AgentsUnfair Competition Practices
References
13
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. 04-10-00375-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2012

Norris J. DeVoll v. Rebecca Demonbruen and William Dowds

Norris J. DeVoll appealed a judgment rendered against him and in favor of Rebecca Demonbreun and William Dowds under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). The case originated from DeVoll's sale of a home and adjacent property to Demonbreun and Dowds in 2007. Post-purchase, the buyers discovered numerous significant defects including leaks, plumbing issues, and an undisclosed buried gas tank, leading them to sue DeVoll for misrepresentation and failure to disclose. The jury found DeVoll liable for deceptive acts and unconscionable action, awarding the buyers damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that DeVoll's statement that "nothing was wrong with the house" constituted an actionable material misrepresentation, thereby overruling his arguments regarding the "as is" clause and the sufficiency of mental anguish damages.

Real Estate DisputeDeceptive Trade PracticesConsumer Protection Act"As Is" ClauseFraudulent InducementMisrepresentationFailure to DiscloseProperty DefectsMental Anguish DamagesAppellate Review
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 9,929 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