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. 09-21-00178-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

L&S Pro-Line, LLC and Lee Burkett v. Garrett Gagliano, Snook Holdings, LLC, and Tactical Automation, Inc.

This case involves a business dispute of a two-member Texas limited liability company, L&S Pro-Line (L&S). Appellants, L&S and Lee Burkett, appealed the trial court’s judgments for Appellees Garrett Gagliano, Snook Holdings, LLC, and Tactical Automation, Inc. The core issues included Burkett's attempt to purchase Gagliano's membership interest under the Company Agreement and Tactical Automation's standing as a third-party beneficiary. The Court of Appeals concluded that Burkett effectively exercised his option to buy Gagliano's interest and that Tactical Automation was not an intended third-party beneficiary. The court affirmed certain portions, reversed and rendered others (particularly concerning breach of contract and Tactical's damages), and reversed and remanded for further proceedings on issues like breach of fiduciary duty prior to the effective buyout.

Business DisputeLimited Liability CompanyMembership Interest BuyoutBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyThird-Party BeneficiaryAppellate LawSummary JudgmentCorporate GovernancePartnership Dispute
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Krizan-Wilson

Carolyn Sue Krizan-Wilson was indicted for murder nearly 23 years after her husband's death. She moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing prosecutorial delay violated her rights to due process, speedy trial, due course of law, fair trial, testify, present a defense, and effective representation, and that the indictment was barred by laches. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the indictment. The State of Texas appealed this decision. The appellate court analyzed the due process claim under a two-prong test requiring both substantial prejudice and intentional delay for tactical advantage or bad faith. While acknowledging Krizan-Wilson suffered substantial prejudice due to the delay, including loss of witnesses, evidence, and her mental deterioration, the court found no evidence that the delay was intentional or for improper purposes. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order of dismissal, finding no merit in any of the grounds cited for dismissal and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Due ProcessProsecutorial DelayPre-indictment DelayRight to Fair TrialEffective Assistance of CounselLaches DoctrineConstitutional LawCriminal ProcedureMurder IndictmentDismissal of Charges
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2012

Tactical Air Defense Services, Inc., Gary Fears v. Searock, Jr., Charles

Charles Searock sued Tactical Air Defense Services, Inc. and Gary Fears for various causes of action arising from his employment. After their attorney withdrew, the defendants failed to appear at trial, resulting in a post-answer default judgment. Tactical and Fears filed a motion for new trial, arguing they did not receive notice of the trial setting, but the trial court denied it. On appeal, the court concluded that the appellants' affidavits demonstrated a lack of notice and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion. The judgment against Tactical and Fears was reversed and remanded for further proceedings, while affirmed in all other respects.

Post-answer default judgmentMotion for new trialNotice of trial settingDue processAttorney withdrawalAbuse of discretionAffidavitsEvidentiary hearingPresumption of serviceImputed notice
References
32
Case No. PD-1485-10
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2011

State of Texas v. Wilson, Carolyn Sue Krizan

Carolyn Sue Krizan-Wilson was indicted for murder 23 years after her husband's death. She filed a motion to dismiss the indictment due to pre-indictment delay, which the trial court granted. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal. This Court granted her petition for discretionary review, arguing the delay caused substantial prejudice and was for an impermissible purpose. This Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that while Krizan-Wilson suffered substantial prejudice, she failed to prove the delay was an intentional device for tactical advantage or other bad faith purposes. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Pre-indictment delayDue process violationFifth AmendmentTactical advantageBad faithSubstantial prejudiceStandard of reviewAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewCriminal procedure
References
21
Case No. 14-09-00475-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2010

State v. Carolyn Sue Krizan-Wilson

Carolyn Sue Krizan-Wilson was indicted for the 1985 murder of her husband. She sought dismissal due to a nearly 23-year prosecutorial delay, arguing due process violations, which the trial court granted. The State of Texas appealed, contending that the trial court erred in finding intentional delay for tactical advantage or bad faith. The appellate court, applying the Fifth Circuit and Texas two-prong test, acknowledged substantial prejudice but found no evidence of intentional delay for an improper purpose. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, rejecting other grounds for dismissal such as effective assistance of counsel, right to testify, fair trial, and laches.

Pre-indictment DelayDue ProcessFifth AmendmentSixth AmendmentTexas ConstitutionRight to Fair TrialEffective Assistance of CounselLaches DoctrineMurder IndictmentAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

1199seiu Nat'l Benefit Fund v. Allergan, Inc. (In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig.)

This multi-district litigation addresses defendant Allergan's alleged anticompetitive efforts to delay FDA approval of generic versions of its dry-eye medication, Restasis®. Plaintiffs, comprising Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and End-Payor Plaintiffs, contend Allergan engaged in various unlawful strategies, including filing sham citizen petitions, defrauding the USPTO to secure "second-wave" patents, wrongfully listing these patents, initiating sham patent infringement lawsuits, and transferring patents to a Native American tribe to invoke sovereign immunity. Allergan moved to dismiss the consolidated complaints, asserting that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that its actions caused any delay in generic market entry. The court, however, denied Allergan's motion, concluding that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that Allergan's aggressive and persistent tactics could have effectively delayed competition.

AntitrustPharmaceutical IndustryGeneric DrugsFDA ApprovalPatent InfringementCitizen PetitionsHatch-Waxman ActMonopolyRestasisDry Eye Medication
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Leake

Appellee H. B. Leake sued appellant Texas Employers’ Insurance Association to overturn an Industrial Accident Board award and seek compensation for a 1935 back injury. Leake filed his claim nine years later, alleging "good cause" due to initial belief of trivial injury and doctors misdiagnosing his condition as rheumatism, a claim supported by a jury verdict. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that Leake’s testimony, even when viewed favorably, failed to establish "good cause" for the extensive delay. The court highlighted that Leake knew of his injury from the start, suffered continuous pain, and notably withheld injury details from his consulted physicians. Furthermore, a two-year period following a varicose vein operation lacked any documented "good cause" for continued delay in filing, solidifying the court's decision to render judgment for the appellant.

Delayed Claim FilingGood Cause ExceptionStatute of LimitationsWorkman's CompensationBack InjuryMedical MisdiagnosisPermanent Total IncapacityAppellate ReviewReversed and RenderedIndustrial Accident Board
References
14
Case No. ADJ1454075
Regular
Apr 25, 2011

JOSE FONSECA vs. MIKE SANDOVAL CONCRETE, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for reconsideration, reversing the WCJ's award of sanctions and costs against them. While the defendant delayed payment of a lien claimant's interpreter fee, the Board found insufficient evidence of unreasonable delay or bad-faith tactics. The lien claimant's petition for reconsideration was denied, and the Board emphasized the need for parties to resolve future disputes through communication.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings and AwardSanctionCostsLabor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5813Bad FaithWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ3885285 (FRE 0248529) ADJ3795787 (FRE 0247126)
Regular
Dec 30, 2008

Larry Shores vs. CITY OF MADERA; ACCLAMATION FRESNO

This case concerns a worker's compensation claim for a back and spine injury sustained by Larry Shores. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded sanctions imposed on the defendant for litigation tactics, and rescinded a penalty for delayed temporary disability payments. However, it otherwise affirmed the finding of industrial injury, awarded penalties for unreasonable delay in medical treatment, and upheld the need for ongoing medical care, including surgery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLarry ShoresCity of MaderaAcclamation FresnoADJ3885285ADJ3795787Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJIndustrial Injury
References
27
Case No. ADJ4349754 (OXN 0124391)
Regular
Feb 08, 2013

JOSE TOSTADO vs. JM SMUCKER COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

Defendant JM Smucker Company seeks reconsideration of an award granting applicant Jose Tostado a 25% penalty for delayed life pension benefits and attorney fees. The defendant also contests sanctions imposed by the WCJ for bad faith tactics under Labor Code section 5813. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding of unreasonable delay in benefit payment. However, the Board remanded for a new Notice of Intention to Sanction due to procedural deficiencies in identifying the party to be sanctioned.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJM Smucker CompanyBroadsopireJose TostadoFindings AwardSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Bad Faith TacticsDue ProcessPetition to Reopen
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,840 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