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. 06-09-00009-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2010

Walker & Associates Surveying, Inc., and Dennis Walker, D/B/A Walker and Associates Construction v. Royce Roberts

Royce Roberts hired Walker & Associates Surveying, Inc. (WAS) and Dennis Walker d/b/a Walker and Associates Construction (WAC) to extend a horse training racetrack, leading to a dispute over construction requirements. WAS filed a mechanic's lien and suit, while Roberts counterclaimed for fraudulent lien and usurious interest. The appellate court partially affirmed the usury finding under Texas Finance Code Section 305.003 but remanded damages for recalculation. The fraudulent lien summary judgment was reversed and remanded due to a fact question on intent to cause financial harm, and the claim for usury under Section 305.004 was reversed. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment, including the jury's findings on WAC's breach of contract and quantum meruit.

Horse Racetrack ConstructionMechanic's LienFraudulent LienUsury LawTexas Finance CodeQuantum MeruitBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker & Associates Surveying, Inc. v. Roberts

This case involves a dispute between Royce Roberts (property owner) and Walker & Associates Surveying, Inc. (WAS) and Dennis Walker d/b/a Walker and Associates Construction (WAC) (collectively, the Walker Group) over the construction of a horse racetrack. The Walker Group sued Roberts for payment, and Roberts counterclaimed for fraudulent lien and usury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that WAS charged usurious interest under Section 305.003 of the Texas Finance Code but reversed and remanded the damages calculation. The court also reversed the summary judgment against WAS for fraudulent lien and usury under Section 305.004, remanding for trial on the merits for the fraudulent lien and rendering judgment that Roberts take nothing on the 305.004 claim. The court affirmed the jury's findings related to WAC's breach of contract, non-substantial performance, and the award of quantum meruit to WAC for $13,200. Additionally, the court upheld the proper admission of evidence and the refusal to award eighteen percent interest on the quantum meruit recovery.

Contract disputeConstruction contractRacetrack constructionMechanic's lienFraudulent lienUsuryTexas Finance CodeQuantum meruitBreach of contractSubstantial performance
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Walker

This is a workman's compensation case where Mrs. E. D. Walker, Sr. (appellee) sued Trinity Universal Insurance Company (appellant) after her husband, E. D. Walker, Sr., died following a collapse at work. Mr. Walker collapsed on September 5, 1945, from what the jury determined to be a heat stroke or heat exhaustion while working on a construction job in Blanco County, Texas. He died on March 15, 1946, after developing a brain tumor that was aggravated by the heat stroke. The court overruled the plea in abatement, finding the notice filed by the son as an agent was valid, and affirmed the jury's findings that the deceased suffered a heat stroke which contributed to his death, and that he was exposed to greater hazards than the public generally.

Workman's CompensationHeat StrokeHeat ExhaustionCausationBrain TumorAgency LawNotice of DissatisfactionMedical TestimonyAppellate ReviewJury Findings
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02128 [203 AD3d 1167]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2022

Matter of Walker v. Sterkowicz-Walker

This case involves a dispute over parental access rights between divorced parents, Thomas Walker (father) and Janet Sterkowicz-Walker (mother), concerning their younger child. The Family Court initially granted the father's petition for sole legal and residential custody of the child. The mother appealed an order that limited her parental access to written letters and weekly one-hour telephone or video sessions, contingent on the child's consent. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that there was a sound and substantial basis in the record to limit the mother's parental access. This determination was based on evidence of the child's fear and anxiety regarding parental access, supported by testimony from the father, the child's therapist, and observations by social workers.

Custody modificationParental accessChild's best interestFamily Court ActAppellate reviewChild psychologyVirtual visitationParental rightsChild's consentDetriment to child
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Walker

Chief Judge McAvoy considered the motion by Tyrone Walker and Tony Walker to dismiss Count One CCE charges against them, based on the government's alleged failure to prove the 'organizer, supervisor, or manager' element. The court meticulously reviewed testimonial evidence regarding individuals allegedly managed or organized by each defendant in a cocaine distribution network. Judge McAvoy concluded there was a 'minimally sufficient basis' for a rational jury to find that both Walkers managed several individuals, thus satisfying the CCE elements. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and the identified individuals will be presented to the jury as potential managees.

Continuing Criminal EnterpriseDrug TraffickingCCE ChargesMotion to DismissSufficiency of EvidenceOrganizerSupervisorManagerCocaine DistributionFederal Court
References
13
Case No. 06-08-00029-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2008

Stevie Walker v. State

Stevie Walker appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, crack cocaine, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Officer Brian Pool, accompanied by Officer Travis Shirley, stopped Walker's vehicle after observing him fail to properly signal two turns. During the temporary detention, Pool discovered Walker in possession of a rock of crack cocaine. Walker contended Pool lacked specific, articulable facts to support reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop, but the court found that an officer may lawfully stop a person for a traffic violation committed in their presence. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Pool had an objectively reasonable basis to detain Walker for a personally observed violation of the Texas Transportation Code.

Traffic stopMotion to suppressReasonable suspicionFourth AmendmentControlled substanceCrack cocaineTexas Transportation CodeSignalling violationPretext stopAppellate review
References
13
Case No. 10-21-00342-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2022

in Re C.A. Walker, Inc.

C.A. Walker, Inc. sought a writ of mandamus from the Tenth Court of Appeals, requesting the trial court to withdraw an order that lifted abatement and granted summary judgment in favor of Prestige Construction & Development, LLC. Prestige had sued C.A. Walker for payment on a construction project, and after an initial abatement, the trial court granted summary judgment for $42,271.23. C.A. Walker argued the summary judgment was a legal nullity due to the abatement. The appellate court denied the petition, concluding that the trial court's order was not void and C.A. Walker had an adequate remedy through direct appeal.

MandamusSummary JudgmentAbatementAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionConstruction LawTexas Court of AppealsOriginal ProceedingLegal NullityAdequate Remedy
References
5
Case No. 10-97-184-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 1998

Zurich Insurance Company v. Rosie Lee Walker

Zurich Insurance Company appealed a jury verdict that awarded workers' compensation damages to Rosie Lee Walker for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Walker, an employee of Jon-Lin Corporation, developed the condition from repetitive work. Zurich argued that Walker's trial counsel engaged in improper and prejudicial jury argument. The appellate court found Walker's counsel's comments improper but not incurable, and for the properly preserved complaint, determined no reversible harm resulted. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, denying Walker's request for frivolous appeal damages.

Workers' CompensationJury ArgumentImproper ArgumentHarmless ErrorIncurable ErrorAppellate ReviewCarpal Tunnel SyndromeTotal Loss of UseFrivolous AppealTexas Law
References
16
Case No. 04-19-00363-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2020

Joseph Andrew Burt II v. Denny's Inc.

The case involves Joseph Andrew Burt, II, who sued Denny’s, Inc. after a slip and fall injury. Burt initially misidentified the defendant as 'Denny's a/k/a Denny's Restaurant' and attempted service on an unrelated entity, EYM Diner of Florida, LLC. Upon realizing the error and after the statute of limitations expired, Burt amended his petition to correctly name Denny's, Inc. The trial court granted Denny's, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment based on the limitations defense. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Burt failed to provide evidence that Denny's operated under the assumed names or to prove misidentification and due diligence in service.

Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentMisidentification DoctrineDue DiligenceTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Assumed NameCommon NamePersonal InjuryPremises LiabilityCorporate Identity
References
25
Case No. 05-17-01457-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Charles Chang, M.D. v. Ashley Denny

Dr. Charles Chang performed brain surgery on Ashley Denny in 2006, leaving a cotton ball in her brain, which was discovered during a second surgery in 2011. Denny filed a medical liability claim against Dr. Chang in 2013, approximately seven years after the initial surgery and more than two years after discovering the foreign object. The trial court initially dismissed the claims as time-barred but later granted a new trial, where a jury found Dr. Chang negligent and Denny diligent in pursuing her claim. Dr. Chang appealed, challenging the denial of his motion for Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto (JNOV) on Denny's open courts defense. The dissenting opinion argues that Denny failed to exercise due diligence as a matter of law, given the 25-month delay in filing suit after discovery, and that her explanations (difficulty helping her lawyer and finding an expert) are insufficient to overcome the statute of limitations. The dissent concludes that the law should be applied neutrally, preventing recovery against Dr. Chang and suggesting Denny's recourse should be against her attorney.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsOpen Courts DoctrineDue DiligenceForeign ObjectSurgical ErrorJury VerdictJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Practice
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 525 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