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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White Budd Van Ness Partnership v. Major-Gladys Drive Joint Venture

A joint venture, Plaintiff/Appellee Major-Gladys Drive Joint Venture, sued Defendant/Appellant The White Budd Van Ness Partnership, an architectural firm, for damages stemming from their alleged failure to properly investigate and advise on the use of 'C-Tile' in a shopping center construction. The 'C-Tile' proved unsuitable and had to be replaced. The jury found the architects liable for deceptive trade practices, including misrepresentations and unconscionable actions, as well as negligence and breach of contract. The trial court entered a judgment of $498,157.40 plus attorney's fees against the architects. On appeal, the court affirmed the applicability of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) to professional architectural services and extended the implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance to such services. The appellate court overruled various points of error raised by the architects, including issues related to a 'Mary Carter' settlement agreement with a co-defendant contractor. The judgment was reformed to disallow a $41,000.00 credit granted to the architects and, as reformed, was affirmed.

Architect MalpracticeDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Professional Services LiabilityImplied WarrantyUnconscionable ActionNegligenceBreach of ContractConstruction DefectsC-Tile FailureExpert Testimony
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jock v. Fien

Plaintiff Amos Jock was injured while fabricating a concrete septic tank at his workplace, falling from a steel mold. He, along with his wife, sued his employer Richard Van Petty, Van Petty Excavating, Inc., and building owner Donald L. Fien, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied summary judgment, finding issues of fact, but the Appellate Court disagreed. The Appellate Court held that Mr. Jock was engaged in a normal manufacturing process, not protected building construction or related activities under the cited Labor Law sections. Consequently, his causes of action were dismissed, and the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentBuilding ConstructionManufacturing ProcessSeptic Tank FabricationWorker ProtectionAppellate ReviewScope of Employment
References
14
Case No. 04-08-00443-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2009

Daniel M. Van Dam and Cheryl L. Van Dam v. Patrick L. Lewis and Dorisa L. Lewis

This appeal concerns a property dispute over an alleged easement providing water access to Lake Corpus Christi for residents of the Pernitas Point Subdivision. Appellees Patrick L. Lewis and Dorisa L. Lewis claimed an easement by implied dedication across land owned by Appellants Daniel M. Van Dam and Cheryl L. Van Dam. The trial court granted a declaratory judgment in favor of the Lewises, confirming an easement for the benefit of the public and subdivision lot owners. However, the appellate court found that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish donative intent by the original landowners to dedicate the property for public use. The court concluded that mere acquiescence to use by neighbors, without additional factors implying donative intent, was not sufficient to prove an implied dedication. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment that the property is not subject to an easement by implied dedication.

Property LawEasement by Implied DedicationAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentReal Estate DisputeDonative IntentPublic UseLand SubdivisionTexas LawLake Access
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Dam v. Lewis

This appeal concerns a property dispute over an alleged easement providing water access to Lake Corpus Christi for residents of Pernitas Point Subdivision. Appellees Patrick L. Lewis and Dorissa Lewis claimed an easement by implied dedication existed across a portion of land owned by Appellants Daniel Van Dam and Cheryl L. Van Dam. The trial court initially granted a declaratory judgment in favor of the Lewises, confirming the easement. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the evidence legally insufficient to establish an easement by implied dedication. Specifically, the court determined there was insufficient proof of donative intent by the original landowners to dedicate the property for public use, noting that mere acquiescence or limited "owner access" was not enough to meet the heavy burden required.

Easement by Implied DedicationProperty RightsDonative IntentPublic AccessLake Corpus ChristiPernitas Point SubdivisionDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceTexas Property Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc.

The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) filed suit against Atlas Van Lines, Inc. for violating regulations related to owner-operator payments and escrow funds, stemming from issues with its agent, Thomas Van & Storage, Inc., which subsequently declared bankruptcy. Atlas conceded liability for past regulatory breaches but argued against a general injunction, contending that the issues with the bankrupt agent were moot and that it had implemented a new compliance program. The Court, however, found that Atlas had a history of consistent non-compliance, indicating a significant risk of future violations. Consequently, the Court granted the ICC's motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction against Atlas to prevent further violations of ICC regulations.

Interstate Commerce CommissionAtlas Van LinesSummary JudgmentPermanent InjunctionMotor CarrierOwner-OperatorLeasing RegulationsEscrow FundsRegulatory ComplianceBankruptcy
References
27
Case No. 14-16-00686-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2018

Scott Van Dyke v. Builders West, Inc.

Scott Van Dyke appealed a final judgment favoring Builders West, Inc. Builders West had sued Van Dyke for breach of contract due to nonpayment on a home renovation, while Van Dyke counter-sued for overcharging and faulty work. A jury found for Builders West, awarding significant damages and attorney's fees. Van Dyke's appeal challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding good and workmanlike performance, the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on supervision, and the attorney's fee rate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding that the jury charge did not require proof of good and workmanlike performance, Van Dyke waived his second issue, and Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code does not limit attorney's fees to amounts actually incurred when found reasonable and necessary.

breach of contracthome renovationattorney feesappellate reviewsufficiency of evidencejury chargeimplied warrantyquantum meruitsubstantial performanceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
30
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01314 [180 AD3d 969]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2020

Alexandridis v. Van Gogh Contr. Co.

Theodoros Alexandridis, an injured plaintiff, brought an action against Van Gogh Contracting Company, Van Gogh Painting Corp., Van Gogh Construction Corp. (collectively Van Gogh defendants), and Christopher Meskouris and Filantey Meskouris (collectively Meskouris defendants) after sustaining injuries from a ladder fall at the Meskouris defendants' home. The plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, denying the Van Gogh defendants' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims due to triable issues of fact regarding their contractor status and control over the worksite. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Meskouris defendants on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, citing their failure to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of a dangerous condition. It also affirmed the Meskouris defendants' summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) based on the homeowner's exemption.

Personal injuryLadder accidentConstructionHomeowner's exemptionLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentTriable issues of fact
References
20
Case No. 13-16-00483-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2018

Donald L. Schindler v. Elizabeth M. Schindler

Donald L. Schindler appealed a default divorce decree from Elizabeth M. Schindler, challenging the denial of his new trial motion and several aspects of the divorce judgment. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the new trial motion, concluding Donald's failure to appear was due to conscious indifference. The court also upheld the trial court's decisions regarding child support, possession, conservatorship, and community property division. However, the appellate court found insufficient evidence to support spousal maintenance and determined the unilateral injunction against Donald was an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the court affirmed the decree in part, but reversed and remanded the issues of spousal maintenance and the injunction for a new trial.

Divorce DecreeNo-Answer DefaultMotion for New TrialCraddock TestAbuse of DiscretionChild Support GuidelinesStandard Possession OrderJoint Managing ConservatorshipCommunity Property DivisionSpousal Maintenance
References
50
Case No. 03-97-00434-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1998

Nicholas Van Bavel v. Oasis Design, Inc. David Knapp Constantine Ciocan And C & C Electronics, Ltd.

Nicholas van Bavel sued Oasis Design, Inc., David Knapp, Constantine Ciocan, and C&C Electronics, Ltd. for fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The jury found in van Bavel's favor, but the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's take-nothing judgment on van Bavel's individual claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract, finding legally insufficient evidence for a fiduciary relationship, detrimental reliance for fraud, and no breach of contract based on a "business sense" clause. However, the court reversed and remanded the derivative action, finding legally sufficient evidence that Knapp and Ciocan breached their fiduciary duty to Oasis Design but factually insufficient evidence to support the jury's damage award, requiring a new trial on that specific claim.

Corporate LawShareholder DisputeFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractFraudJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictAppellate ReviewDerivative ActionDamagesFactually Insufficient Evidence
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hunt v. Van Der Horst Corp.

Milton Carrol Hunt appealed a summary judgment against him in a wrongful termination suit against his former employer, Van Der Horst Corporation. Hunt claimed he was fired for filing a workers' compensation claim, in violation of article 8307c of the Workers' Compensation Act. Van Der Horst contended the termination decision was made before Hunt's alleged injury and without knowledge of his claim. The appellate court found that material issues of fact remained unresolved regarding the causal connection between Hunt's actions and his termination, citing evidence like a previously voided termination slip and the timing of his firing after reporting an injury. Furthermore, the court determined that Hunt had taken sufficient steps towards instituting a workers' compensation claim by informing his supervisor of his injury and intent to see a doctor. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for a trial on the merits.

Workers' CompensationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentCausal ConnectionRetaliatory DischargeMaterial Fact IssueAppealEmployee RightsTexas LawArticle 8307c
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 507 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