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. 01-04-00096-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2006

Heritage Housing Development, Inc., F/K/A Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. Heritage Geriatric Housing Development Viii, Inc. v. Velma Carr, as Heir at Law and Representative of the Estate of Raymond Carr

Velma Carr brought a survival action against Heritage Geriatric Housing Development VIII, Inc. d/b/a Heritage Sam Houston Gardens ("Houston Gardens") and its parent corporation, Heritage Housing Development, Inc. f/k/a Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. ("HHD"), for negligent nursing home care of her deceased husband, Raymond Carr. A jury found both corporate entities and employees negligent. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against HHD, finding legally insufficient evidence to support vicarious liability against the parent corporation because it did not control the details of patient care. However, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the negligence claim against Houston Gardens. Due to the potential impact of HHD's inclusion on the jury's apportionment of liability and damages, the case was remanded for a new trial on the negligence claim against Houston Gardens.

Nursing Home NegligenceVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceParent Company LiabilityCorporate ControlNegligent CareTexas Court of AppealsRemand for New TrialMedical Malpractice
References
22
Case No. 10-09-00231-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2010

Jaime Ibarra and Maria Ibarra Torres v. the Hines Land Group, LTD., A.W. Hines, Kelly King Hines, Ricky D. Hines, Individually and D/B/A Hines Development Corporation, Hines Development, LTD., and Hines Development Management, LLC

Jaime Ibarra, an employee of Moss Concrete Construction Co., Inc., was injured when a dirt wall collapsed while he was repairing a leak in a man-made lake at the Pecan Valley Ranch subdivision, developed by The Hines Land Group. Ibarra and Maria Ibarra Torres sued the Hines Appellees, alleging various causes of action including negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring, and negligent undertaking. The trial court granted the Hines Appellees' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the Hines Appellees owed no duty to Ibarra as they did not retain or exercise control over the excavation work, the trench was an open and obvious defect created by the independent contractors, and negligent hiring claims do not apply to independent contractors' employees.

Personal InjurySummary Judgment AppealPremises LiabilityNegligence ClaimsIndependent Contractor LiabilityDuty of CareAppellate Court DecisionTexas Civil ProcedureConstruction Site InjuryGross Negligence
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klein v. A.D. Development Ltd.

Frank Klein's motion to consolidate action numbers 1 and 2 was granted without opposition. Defendant Kala Zaveri, also president of A.D. Development Ltd., filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in the consolidated action, arguing she was exempt from liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as an owner of a single-family dwelling. However, the court denied her motion, finding that the dwelling was part of a commercial enterprise intended for resale, not personal use. The court reasoned that the homeowner's exemption did not apply to commercial developers, emphasizing the statute's intent to place responsibility for worker safety on those best suited to provide such safeguards.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Homeowner ExemptionCommercial EnterpriseSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationWorker SafetyConsolidated ActionDeveloper LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
3
Case No. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. 01-20-00465-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2020

in Re VCPalmsWestheimer Development LLC & Parawest Community Development LLC

Relators, VC PalmsWestheimer, LLC and Parawest Community Development, LLC, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Judge Daryl Moore to vacate an order denying their motion for leave to designate a responsible third party. The underlying case involves Seyedali Parsafar suing the Relators for negligence, gross negligence, premises liability, and DTPA violations following an assault at an apartment complex. The Relators sought to designate Jaeylen Deshawn Turner or an unknown individual (John Doe) as a responsible third party. The trial court denied the motion, believing the disclosure was untimely as it was not made before the statute of limitations ran or in the initial answer. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court abused its discretion, clarifying that disclosure obligations for responsible third parties arise when discovery responses are due, not necessarily before the statute of limitations or in the original answer when no discovery was served, and conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus.

MandamusResponsible Third PartyTimelinessStatute of LimitationsDiscoveryPleading RequirementsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate RemedyTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz v. SFDS Development

A construction worker sustained injuries after falling 20 feet from a roof that unexpectedly collapsed, having not been provided with any safety equipment. The defendants, SFDS Development and San Francisco Houses, Inc., were the building owners. The Supreme Court initially denied the worker's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and the owners' cross-motions for common-law indemnification against the worker's employer, Catspaw Construction Corp. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and the owners' cross-motions for indemnification, finding that Catspaw had direct control over the worksite.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityIndemnificationElevated WorksiteSafety DevicesComparative NegligenceGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hastings Development, LLC v. Evanston Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between Hastings Development, LLC (Plaintiff) and Evanston Insurance Company (Defendant) regarding insurance coverage. Hastings sought a declaratory judgment that Evanston was obligated to indemnify it under a commercial general liability policy for a personal injury lawsuit, the Cohen Action. Evanston had denied coverage, citing an "Employer's Liability" exclusion. The Court found the exclusion ambiguous and, applying the contra proferentem rule, granted Hastings' motion for summary judgment, mandating indemnification. Additionally, the Court dismissed Hastings' claim for bad faith denial of insurance coverage, as New York law does not recognize it as a separate tort in these circumstances.

Insurance CoverageCommercial General Liability PolicyDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer's Liability ExclusionContract InterpretationAmbiguity in Insurance PoliciesContra Proferentem RuleSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissBad Faith Claim
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2011

Saldivar v. Lawrence Development Realty, LLC

Angel Saldivar was injured in a scaffold collapse while working for JMK Construction Management, Inc., leading him and his wife to sue Lawrence Development Realty, LLC (LDR) for personal injuries, alleging a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation. Initially, the Supreme Court denied their summary judgment motion and granted LDR's cross-motion, which contended an alter ego defense under Workers’ Compensation Law. However, upon reargument, the court reversed its decision, granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and denying LDR's cross-motion. LDR appealed this reargument order, but the appellate court affirmed, concluding that LDR was not an alter ego of JMK. The appellate court further held that the scaffold's collapse established LDR's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), as it failed to provide proper protection to the injured plaintiff.

Personal InjuryScaffold CollapseLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentReargumentAlter Ego DefenseWorkers Compensation LawAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosenberg Development Corp. v. Imperial Performing Arts, Inc.

Imperial Performing Arts, Inc. (IPA) sued Rosenberg Development Corporation (RDC) for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. RDC filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming governmental immunity from suit. The trial court partially granted and partially denied RDC's plea. On interlocutory appeal, RDC challenged the denial of its plea. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's partial denial, holding that economic development corporations like RDC generally do not possess common law governmental immunity from suit for contract claims. The court further clarified that the statutory immunity granted to Type B corporations under Local Government Code § 505.106 is limited to tort claims and immunity from liability for damages, neither of which supported RDC's plea for immunity from suit in this contract dispute.

Governmental ImmunityEconomic Development CorporationPlea to JurisdictionBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Local Government CodeGovernmental FunctionsPolitical SubdivisionsCommon Law ImmunityStatutory Immunity
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Develop Don't Destroy (Brooklyn), Inc. v. Empire State Development Corp.

The court reviewed CPLR article 78 petitions challenging the New York State Urban Development Corp.'s (ESDC) modification of the Atlantic Yards Project plan under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Petitioners argued ESDC irrationally maintained a 10-year project build-out date and failed to mandate a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), despite significant project delays outlined in new agreements. The court found ESDC's continued use of the 10-year build date arbitrary and capricious and its environmental analysis inadequate, necessitating an SEIS to address prolonged construction impacts. However, the court denied a stay on Phase I construction, citing its advanced stage and prior environmental review.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAAtlantic Yards ProjectProject Build-Out DelaySupplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)Rational Basis ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDevelopment AgreementMTA AgreementNeighborhood Character Impacts
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 7,657 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