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. 01-15-00582-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2016

in Re Terr'l La'yonne Mark

The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas at Houston issued a continuing order of abatement for a mandamus petition. Previously, the case was abated and remanded to allow the new respondent, the Honorable David S. Perwin, to rule on the relator's motion to transfer venue. A subsequent supplemental clerk's record was filed, but it only contained a docket sheet with a handwritten entry, not a written order, thus failing to comply with the court's instructions. The Court emphasized that a docket entry does not substitute for a written order. Consequently, the court continued the abatement, lifted a prior stay, and remanded the mandamus petition again, ordering the district clerk to file a second supplemental clerk’s record with a written and signed order from the respondent within 30 days. The case is abated, treated as closed, and removed from the active docket until compliant records are filed.

Mandamus PetitionAbatement OrderRemandVenue TransferDocket EntryWritten Order RequirementAppellate ProcedureTexas Family CodeFort Bend CountyJudicial Order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harco Energy, Inc. v. Re-Entry People, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Harco Energy, Inc., Larry D. Cotten, and Prime Western Development, Inc., from a judgment rendered in favor of The Re-Entry People, Inc. The dispute originated from an agreement for Re-Entry to perform oilfield services on the Ruth Hatcher Lease in Hardeman County, Texas, for which Re-Entry was not fully paid. The Re-Entry People, Inc. initially sued Cotten, Harco Land, Inc. (Land), Harco Energy, Inc., and Prime Western Development, Inc. on claims including breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent transfer of assets, alter ego, and negligent misrepresentation. Following a bench trial, judgment was rendered against all defendants. Land did not appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment against Larry D. Cotten, individually, finding legally and factually sufficient evidence for breach of contract and fraud. However, the court reversed the judgment as to Harco Energy, Inc. and Prime Western Development, Inc., and rendered judgment that Re-Entry take nothing against them, citing legally insufficient evidence for their liability.

Breach of ContractFraudNegligent MisrepresentationCorporate Veil PiercingAlter EgoFraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA)Oilfield ServicesAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceAgency Liability
References
17
Case No. Docket Entry 5
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Long Island University

Plaintiff Tremaine Johnson sued his employer, Long Island University (LIU), alleging race and gender discrimination and a hostile work environment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. LIU moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted LIU's motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing certain Title VII claims due to untimeliness or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and also dismissing hostile work environment claims. However, the plaintiff's race-based discrimination claims concerning denied compensation opportunities, a disproportionate workload, and failure to hire for an Associate Director position were allowed to proceed. Plaintiff was also granted leave to replead claims regarding denied training and negative performance reviews.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981New York State Human Rights LawAdverse Employment ActionDisparate Treatment
References
52
Case No. Docket Entry No. 102
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2011

Beautybank, Inc. v. Harvey Prince LLP

Plaintiff BeautyBank Inc. sought to hold Kumar Ramani in contempt for breaching a permanent injunction issued on October 12, 2010, against Harvey Prince LLP. BeautyBank alleged that Ramani, as a principal of Harvey Prince LLP, continued to sell infringing products. Ramani argued that Harvey Prince LLP did not legally exist and therefore he could not be held in contempt. The court found that BeautyBank failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of Harvey Prince LLP's existence as a legal entity. Furthermore, the court determined that judicial estoppel should not apply because BeautyBank did not suffer unfair detriment, and Ramani did not gain an unfair advantage from his prior inconsistent statements to the USPTO. Consequently, the motion for contempt was denied as Ramani could not be subject to an injunction against a non-existent entity.

Trademark InfringementContempt MotionPermanent InjunctionDefault JudgmentJudicial EstoppelNon-Existent EntityUSPTO FilingsNevada LawIntellectual PropertyEAU FLIRT
References
16
Case No. Docket entry no. 6
Regular Panel Decision

Cervantes Salazar v. Dretke

A federal court denies habeas corpus relief to petitioner Luis Cervantes Salazar, who challenged his 1998 Bexar County capital murder conviction and death sentence. Salazar was convicted of fatally stabbing Martha Sanchez and her son Erick Martinez in 1997, claiming self-defense due to intoxication. The court reviewed several claims, including challenges to grand jury composition, jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, finding most procedurally defaulted or lacking merit under AEDPA standards. However, the court granted a Certificate of Appealability on the sole issue of whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present expert testimony to controvert the medical examiner's opinion that the victim's injuries were consistent with attempted sexual assault.

Capital MurderHabeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselJury SelectionGrand Jury CompositionProcedural DefaultEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentSixth AmendmentMedical Examiner Testimony
References
149
Case No. Docket Entry No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Air Liquide USA LLC

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought an action against Air Liquide USA LLC and Air Liquide Industrial, U.S., L.P. on behalf of Jacqueline Ferrel, alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ferrel claimed she was terminated after making allegations of sexual harassment against her manager. Air Liquide moved for complete summary judgment, arguing a lack of causal connection and presenting four legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for Ferrel's termination: poor attendance and tardiness, scheduling errors, excessive personal phone calls, and inappropriate use of a corporate credit card. The court denied Air Liquide's motion for summary judgment, finding that the EEOC presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, citing temporal proximity between the harassment claim and the termination decision, increased documentation of performance issues post-claim, and changes in Ferrel's work situation. The court also determined that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Air Liquide's stated reasons for termination were merely a pretext for a retaliatory motive, thereby precluding summary judgment. The court also granted in part and denied in part Air Liquide's motion to strike certain evidence.

RetaliationTitle VIISexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPretextCausationMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkFifth CircuitHouston District Court
References
0
Case No. Docket Entry No. 1
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2015

Dodds v. Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Keith Dodds, an at-will employee, was terminated by Terracon Consultants for his refusal to work a weekend shift, citing a U.S. Department of Transportation regulation regarding driving hours. Dodds initiated a wrongful discharge lawsuit against Terracon under Texas' Sabine Pilot doctrine, asserting he was fired solely for declining to perform an illegal act. Terracon sought summary judgment, contending that no illegal act was required and that Dodds had an alternative statutory remedy under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. The court denied Terracon's motion, concluding that a genuine factual dispute exists regarding the nature of the employer's instruction and finding the STAA does not preclude the Sabine Pilot claim. The case is now set for a pretrial scheduling conference.

Wrongful DischargeAt-Will EmploymentSabine Pilot DoctrineDOT RegulationsHours of ServiceSurface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA)Summary JudgmentFactual DisputeStatutory RemedyPreemption
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wallingford v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co.

Cheryl Sue Wallingford's workers' compensation case was initially dismissed for want of prosecution. Although her motion to reinstate was orally granted and noted in the docket, no formal written order of reinstatement was ever signed within the court's plenary jurisdiction period. Consequently, Trinity, the employer's carrier, successfully moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after the plenary power expired. Wallingford appealed, contending the original dismissal was void and that the oral pronouncement and docket entry were sufficient for reinstatement. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that a written order is mandatory for reinstatement under Rule 165a and that the trial court correctly determined it had lost jurisdiction. The court also rejected Wallingford's constitutional challenges regarding due process and the open courts provision.

Workers' CompensationDismissal for Want of ProsecutionCase ReinstatementPlenary PowerJurisdictionTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 165aAppellate ProcedureOral OrderWritten Order RequirementDue Process
References
27
Case No. Docket Entries No. 140, 141
Regular Panel Decision

In re Plains All Am. Pipeline, L.P. Sec. Litig.

This Memorandum and Opinion addresses the defendants' second motion to dismiss a securities-fraud amended complaint. The case involves a highly publicized oil spill on the California coast by Plains All American Pipeline, an oil and gas pipeline owner and operator. Plaintiffs, a putative class of stockholders, allege that Plains and its officers made misrepresentations about the spill's extent and the company's environmental compliance programs, causing a drop in stock price. The court previously dismissed claims without prejudice, allowing for amendment. Now, evaluating the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, the court grants the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court finds that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege specific, actionable misrepresentations and, more critically, failed to establish a strong inference of scienter for the individual defendants for any remaining potentially actionable statements. Consequently, all claims are dismissed with prejudice, deeming further amendment futile.

Securities FraudOil SpillPipeline IntegrityEnvironmental ComplianceClass ActionMotions to DismissScienterRule 9(b)PSLRAStock Price
References
55
Case No. Docket Entry No. 1, No. 18, No. 22
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Derbera Ann Lewis sought judicial review after an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Appeals Council denied her application for Title XVI supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. Lewis claimed disability due to multiple impairments, including chronic back pain, hypertension, diabetes, and depression. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment from Lewis and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The review focused on whether the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence regarding Lewis's medical condition, subjective complaints, and residual functional capacity. Ultimately, the court denied Lewis's motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner's motion, and affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits, finding it supported by substantial evidence on the record.

Social Security DisabilitySSI BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeSummary JudgmentSubstantial Evidence ReviewMedical ImpairmentsMental Retardation ClaimResidual Functional CapacityVocational Expert TestimonyPsychiatric Evaluation
References
63
Showing 1-10 of 366 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