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. 13-24-00074-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

Zachary K. Mills, Robin Mills, and Edgegrove Homes, LLC v. Deborah Rupp and Edward Rupp

The Millses appealed a trial court's judgment awarding equitable relief, damages, and attorney's fees to the Rupps. The dispute arose from the Millses' plans to build a two-story home, allegedly violating deed restrictions for single-story residences and lateral setbacks in the Treadwell Subdivision. The Rupps' claims included breach of contract and enforcement of deed restrictions. The trial court sided with the Rupps, awarding damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the equitable relief and attorney's fees under the Texas Property Code, but reversed the damage award and related attorney's fees due to insufficient evidence supporting actual damages.

Deed RestrictionsRestrictive CovenantsBreach of ContractEquitable ReliefAttorney's FeesMootness DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentProperty LawTexas Appellate LawReal Estate Litigation
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilchester West Concerned Homeowners LDEF, Inc. v. Wilchester West Fund, Inc.

This case addresses a dispute between a homeowners' organization, Wilchester West Concerned Homeowners LDEF, Inc. (WWCH), and several homeowners' associations along with a recreational club. WWCH challenged the trial court's summary judgment which favored the Wilchester West Fund, Inc., Wilchester Club, and Wilchester Owners Committee. The central issue was the validity of amended deed restrictions that mandated homeowner membership in the Wilchester Club and increased annual assessments for its recreational facilities. WWCH contended the amendments lacked proper authority and involved material non-disclosures. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the validity of the deed restriction amendments and the homeowners' associations' discretionary authority in entering into the Use Agreement.

Deed RestrictionsHomeowners AssociationDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentProperty RightsOrganizational StandingAmendment ValidityContract AuthorityNon-Profit CorporationTexas Property Code
References
27
Case No. 08-17-00104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2020

WTX Fund, LLC v. Ray Holt Brown, Patti Holt Elkins, Janie H. Giddiens Trust, Bobby Van Holt Revocable Living Trust, Jay F. Holt, John Thomas Holt, Cheryl Jones, Debra Lynn Morgan Revocable Trust, Judy K. Wadsworth and Susan G. Wesson Revocable Living Trust

WTX Fund, LLC (Appellant) appealed the trial court's ruling on cross motions for summary judgment concerning the interpretation of a 1951 mineral deed. The core dispute was whether the original grantors conveyed their entire mineral interest or reserved their royalty interest. The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of the Holt heirs (Appellees), concluding that the deed conveyed all mineral interests, including the royalty. However, the appellate court determined that the 1951 deed expressly excluded the grantors' royalty right in its entirety from the conveyance. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, rendered partial judgment in favor of WTX, and remanded the case for a reconsideration of WTX’s remedy and attorney's fees.

Mineral Deed InterpretationRoyalty InterestNon-Participating RoyaltyExecutive RightsMineral Estate AttributesDeed ConstructionSummary JudgmentReversed JudgmentRemand for RemedyAttorney Fees
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 1984

Polito v. Polito

The plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing her complaint seeking rescission of a release and reformation of a deed, alleging duress. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the complaint. The appellate court found ample evidence of the defendant's physical and emotional abuse, which compelled the plaintiff to sign the release, thus depriving her of free will. The court reversed the lower court's judgment, reinstated the complaint, and remitted the matter for entry of a judgment rescinding the release and reforming the deed to establish joint tenancy of the property.

DuressRescissionDeed ReformationDomestic ViolenceSpousal AbuseJoint TenancyEquitable ReliefAppellate ReviewFree WillRatification of Agreement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. Northglen Ass'n

This case involves a declaratory judgment action brought by Geneva Brooks and other Northglen property owners challenging Northglen Association's attempts to increase and accumulate annual assessments and impose late fees. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' judgment on restricting assessment increases for Sections One and Two to $120 and allowing the assessment of $35 late fees. However, it reversed the court of appeals' decision regarding the accumulation of fee increases for Sections Four and Five, holding that the deed restrictions explicitly tied increases to the previous year's assessment, thereby precluding accumulation. The Court also vacated lower court judgments for Sections Three and Six due dismissing those claims due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as no property owners from these sections were joined in the suit. Finally, the denial of attorney's fees by the trial court was affirmed, recognizing that both parties pursued legitimate interests.

Homeowners AssociationDeclaratory JudgmentAnnual AssessmentsLate FeesDeed RestrictionsProperty CodeAccumulation of FeesForeclosure LawContract ClauseJurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

RONE ENGINEERING SERVICE, LTD. v. Culberson

This is a restricted appeal from a no-answer default judgment against Rone Engineering Service, Ltd., filed by Troy Culberson. The core issue was whether the trial court acquired personal jurisdiction over the appellant due to discrepancies in the defendant's name on the citation and return of service versus the judgment. The appellate court found that the record did not affirmatively demonstrate strict compliance with the rules governing service of process. It concluded that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Rone Engineering Service, Ltd. Therefore, the court vacated the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

restricted appealdefault judgmentservice of processpersonal jurisdictionmisnomercorporate identityappellate reviewvoid judgmentprocedural errorremand
References
13
Case No. 05-16-01206-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2016

In re BCH Development, LLC

This case involves a mandamus petition filed by BCH Development, LLC challenging a trial court's order granting a new trial in a deed restriction case. The underlying dispute concerned BCH's construction of a home and an award of attorney's fees to Barbara Wohlrabe and Lakeview Heights Addition Property Owners’ Association. The jury awarded $290,000 in attorney's fees, but the trial court granted a new trial based on alleged limine order violations, improper jury argument, and insufficiency of evidence. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's reasons and found them not legally appropriate or supported by the record. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to vacate its new trial order and enter judgment on the jury's original verdict.

Mandamus ReviewNew Trial OrderAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentDeed RestrictionsJury VerdictAbuse of DiscretionLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyLimine Orders
References
27
Case No. 09-17-00117-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2018

C.I.A. Hidden Forest, Inc. v. Deborah Watson and Larry Harris

C.I.A. Hidden Forest, Inc. (C.I.A.) appealed a summary judgment favoring Deborah Watson and Larry Harris (appellees) in a declaratory judgment action concerning C.I.A.'s authority to assess fees and obtain liens. Appellees argued that C.I.A. was not a valid property owners association and lacked the authority to impose maintenance assessments or liens on their property, citing the absence of such provisions in their deed restrictions and C.I.A.'s improper formation. C.I.A. countered that it had a legal right to collect fees based on agreements with the original developer's successor, previous payments by appellees, and a 1997 judgment which recognized an implied covenant to pay maintenance fees. Both parties moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted for appellees and denied for C.I.A. The Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence, found that neither party conclusively established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and therefore reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentProperty Owners AssociationMaintenance FeesProperty LiensDeed RestrictionsImplied CovenantReal Property LawAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
10
Case No. 08-23-00058-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2023

Powder River Mineral Partners, LLC, Sue May, Fred Herring, Ltd., Lafayette Brown Herring, III and Herbert Minerals Ltd. v. Cimarex Energy Co., Chapman, and KHH

This appeal concerns the interpretation of a 1947 deed, specifically addressing a 'double-fraction dilemma' in mineral conveyances. Appellants, successors to the 'May side' of the deed, sued Appellee Cimarex Energy Co. for alleged underpayment of royalties, asserting they are entitled to a floating 3/16th royalty interest. Appellees, the 'Chapman Successors,' contended the deed conveyed a fixed 3/128th royalty interest. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Chapman Successors, determining a fixed 3/128th interest. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the deed conveyed a floating 3/16th royalty interest, consistent with the historical interpretation of such fractions as placeholders for future royalties rather than fixed arithmetic values.

Mineral Deed InterpretationRoyalty InterestDouble Fraction DilemmaFloating Royalty InterestFixed Royalty InterestOil and Gas LawTexas Supreme Court PrecedentContract ConstructionSummary Judgment AppealProperty Rights
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Banks

The state appealed from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s order granting the defendant, Robert Banks, a restricted commercial driver’s license. Banks' commercial driver’s license was revoked for one year following two first-offense convictions for driving while under the influence (D.U.I.). The trial court had ordered the issuance of a restricted license to allow Banks to continue his employment as a bus driver. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, concluding that the D.U.I. statute (T.C.A. § 55-10-403(d)(1)), which permits restricted licenses for employment, applies only to 'operator’s licenses' (now construed as 'classified licenses' after the 1988 Uniform Classified and Commercial Driver License Act) and not to commercial driver’s licenses. The court found that the legislature did not intend for restricted commercial driver licenses to be issued under these circumstances, despite the provision for first offenders to continue employment.

Commercial Driver's LicenseDUI ConvictionRestricted LicenseStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewDriver License SuspensionMotor Vehicle Operator's LicenseTraffic LawEmployment DrivingTennessee Code Annotated
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 873 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