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. 14-17-00431-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2019

Joe Alfred Izen, Jr. Ray Edwards And Bonnie Edwards v. Kenneth E. Ryals, Trustee of the East Texas Investments Trust

This case concerns a real estate dispute over a 3.4-acre tract in Houston. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to Kenneth E. Ryals, Trustee of the East Texas Investments Trust, affirming the Trust's ownership of the property and invalidating a constable's deed acquired by appellant Joe Alfred Izen, Jr. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from Ray and Bonnie Edwards for lack of jurisdiction due to unresolved claims. For Izen's appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the Trust had superior title and Izen failed to present sufficient evidence to counter the summary judgment. The court also declined to review Izen's unpreserved issues regarding lis pendens and federal-court judgments.

Real Estate DisputeSummary JudgmentProperty TitleConstable's DeedTrespass to Try TitleQuiet Title ActionJudicial EstoppelQuasi-EstoppelAppellate JurisdictionAttorney's Fees
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1994

Hunt v. Hunt

This case involves an appeal stemming from a dispute between two brothers, Donald and Edward G. Hunt, over the ownership of Hunt Brothers Contractors, Inc. Donald commenced an action claiming 50% shareholder ownership in the corporation and seeking an accounting, which Edward denied. Edward counter-sued for money damages, alleging Donald improperly withdrew funds from joint bank accounts. The Supreme Court dismissed Donald's claim and ruled in favor of Edward in the second action. Donald appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court found that Donald failed to prove his 50% ownership claim by a preponderance of the evidence, noting inconsistencies in his statements and lack of capital contribution. The appellate court also deferred to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, and Donald abandoned his appeal regarding the damages awarded to Edward.

Shareholder disputeCorporate ownershipFamily business disputeEvidentiary burdenCredibility assessmentAppellate reviewJoint bank accountsBusiness assetsStock ownershipCorporate records
References
9
Case No. 02-12-00028-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2013

Bryan L. Walter v. Donald E. Teller, Jr. and Sonya Dee Jennings

Appellant Bryan L. Walter filed a motion for rehearing of a previous opinion. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, granted the motion in part, withdrew the previous opinion and judgment, and substituted a new one. The court found an error in the trial court’s order, reversing it and remanding the case. The trial court is instructed to reconsider the amount of sanctions against Bryan L. Walter, if any, under chapter 10 of the civil practice and remedies code. Appellees Donald E. Teller, Jr. and Sonya Dee Jennings are ordered to pay all costs of this appeal.

Rehearing GrantedTrial Court ErrorSanctions ReconsiderationCivil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate CostsCourt of AppealsTexas LawReversed and RemandedAppellantAppellees
References
2
Case No. ADJ7393455
Regular
Jul 20, 2011

DONALD EDWARDS JR vs. KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, INSURED BY GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, C/O BERKLEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, LLC.

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the Applicant, Donald Edwards Jr. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration, as it was taken from a non-final interlocutory order that did not determine any substantive rights. The WCAB also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and incorporating the WCJ's report by reference. Consequently, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed and Removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmWCJ's ReportDismissedDeniedGreat Divide Insurance Company
References
11
Case No. 01-CV-0229(ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2004

Wood v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF PATCHOGUE OF NY

The plaintiff, Donald R. Wood, Jr., filed a class action lawsuit against the Incorporated Village of Patchogue and various officials, alleging a scheme to illegally enforce traffic laws and collect fines through an unauthorized 'constabulary.' The complaint included claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a state law claim for money had and received. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted dismissal for claims against the Village, officials in their official capacities, and several individual defendants (Justices Yannacone and O'Connell, and several Village Clerks). However, the court denied dismissal for RICO and money had and received claims against Mayors Stephen Keegan and Edward Ihne, and Chief Constables Jeffrey Kracht and Louis Tomeo, in their individual capacities, and granted the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

RICOCivil RightsSection 1983Judicial ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityMail FraudWire FraudRacketeeringConstabularyTraffic Violations
References
103
Case No. 07-10-00037-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2011

Jimmy Glen Riemer, Richard Coon, Jr., June Meetze Coon Trust, Johnson Borger Ranch Partnership, and W.R. Edwards, Jr. D/B/A W.R. Edwards, Jr. Oil and Gas on Behalf of Themselves and Other Similarly Situated v. State

This interlocutory appeal concerns the denial of class action certification in a dispute between landowners and the State of Texas over Canadian River boundaries. Appellants, including Jimmy Glen Riemer, Richard Coon, Jr., the June Coon Trust, the Johnson Borger Ranch Partnership, and Montford Johnson III, sought to certify a class action alleging an unconstitutional taking of their property. The trial court denied certification, finding some proposed class representatives lacked standing and that the representatives would not adequately protect the class interests due to conflicts arising from a 2002 Canadian River Mineral Boundary Agreement with the State and potential conflicts between landowners on opposite sides of the riverbed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's finding on standing for certain appellants but affirmed the denial of class certification, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the class representatives could not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class due to existing conflicts. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealClass CertificationStandingAdequacy of RepresentationCanadian RiverBoundary DisputeTakings ClaimRiparian RightsEminent Domain
References
33
Case No. 03-07-00310-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2008

Roland D. Fortenberry, Jr., A/K/A Dale Fortenberry, Jr. and Kaye Ann Fortenberry v. Gerald R. Cavanaugh, Jr. and Dianna Cavanaugh, Individually and as Shareholders in the Right of Fortune Products, Inc., a Texas Corporation

This appeal arose from a dispute over the control and management of Fortune Products, Inc., a family-owned business. Appellants Roland D. Fortenberry, Jr., and Kaye Ann Fortenberry challenged a jury's verdict and a district court's judgment favoring appellees Gerald R. Cavanaugh, Jr., and Dianna Cavanaugh. The Fortenberrys raised issues concerning attorney's fees, declaratory judgment, jury charge errors, receivership appointment, and a contempt order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment regarding attorney's fees and company management declarations, finding no abuse of discretion and sufficient supporting evidence. It dismissed portions of the appeal related to the contempt order and the receiver's appointment due to lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Corporate GovernanceShareholder DisputeFamily BusinessBusiness ControlDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesReceivershipFiduciary DutiesCorporate BylawsJudicial Review
References
46
Case No. 06-12-00016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2012

in the Matter of the Marriage of Betty Janis Edwards and Marvin Laverl Edwards

Marvin Laverl Edwards appealed a trial court's property division in his divorce from Betty Janis Edwards. Betty was awarded reimbursement for the enhanced value of Laverl's separate real estate and for the value of cattle purchases, as well as appellate attorney's fees. Laverl challenged these awards, arguing Betty failed to establish the portion of enhanced value attributable to her separate funds, and that the cattle funds were commingled community property. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence supported the reimbursement for the enhanced property value to the community estate, and that any mischaracterization of cattle funds as separate property was harmless as Betty was awarded half the net value. The court also upheld the conditional award of appellate attorney's fees to Betty.

DivorceProperty DivisionCommunity PropertySeparate PropertyReimbursementEnhanced ValueAppellate Attorney's FeesTexas Family LawMarital EstateEquitable Lien
References
38
Case No. 2015-08-0075
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2015

Smith, William Edward, Jr. v. The Newman Group, LLC

This case involves an interlocutory appeal where an employee alleged work-related injuries and sought benefits. The core issue was the employee's compliance with procedural rules for filing requests for expedited hearings. The trial court dismissed the initial defective request but allowed a subsequent, corrected filing. The employer appealed, arguing the entire case should have been dismissed due to the employee's late filings. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing the court's discretion in managing litigation and a preference for deciding cases on their merits over procedural dismissals, provided the party demonstrates sufficient cause to continue.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMotion to DismissShow CauseProcedural RulesAbuse of DiscretionInterlocutory AppealAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationTimeliness
References
13
Case No. 14-01-01143-CR, 14-01-01144-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2003

Edwards v. State

Appellant Michael Jerome Edwards was convicted of improper sexual activity with a person in custody and sexual assault, offenses that occurred during a prisoner transport. On appeal, Edwards challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding venue, the State's closing argument, whether he was an 'employee' of the Harris County Jail, and whether he used or threatened physical force. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.), affirmed the convictions. The court found sufficient evidence to establish venue in Harris County, dismissed the objection to the State's argument as waived, and determined that Edwards qualified as an 'employee' of the Harris County Jail under existing legal precedent. Furthermore, it concluded that ample evidence supported the finding that Edwards used threats of physical force or violence to compel the complainant's submission.

Sexual AssaultImproper Sexual ActivityIn Custody OffenseVenueEmployee StatusThreats of ForceAppellate ReviewCriminal ConvictionTexas LawPrisoner Transport
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 1,550 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