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. No. 2-97-046-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Steak & Ale of Texas, Inc. v. Borneman

This is a dram shop case on remand from the supreme court, which had agreed that a previous jury charge was erroneous but directed a new trial instead of a rendered judgment. The current opinion addresses several points not previously considered. The court found that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's liability finding against Bennigan's for serving an obviously intoxicated individual. However, the court sustained Bennigan's complaint regarding an erroneous jury instruction that misstated the law concerning the Dram Shop Act. Most significantly, the court concluded that exemplary or punitive damages are not recoverable under the Texas Dram Shop Act, as the Act is an exclusive remedy providing only for compensatory damages. Therefore, the trial court's judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

Dram Shop ActAlcoholic Beverage CodePunitive DamagesExemplary DamagesCompensatory DamagesJury InstructionsLegal SufficiencyNo-evidence ChallengeCausation StandardObvious Intoxication
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 342

Plaintiff Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC ("Stop & Shop") sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union Local 342 ("Local 342" or "the union") from proceeding with an arbitration demand. The arbitration involves Stop & Shop's unilateral implementation of the "LMS system," an electronic system for managing inventory and manpower, which the union alleges violates their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Stop & Shop argues the arbitration clause in the CBA does not cover the LMS system. The Court asserted jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act. Applying the principles from the "Steelworkers Trilogy," the court found the CBA's arbitration clause to be broad and determined that the union presented colorable arguments that the dispute regarding the LMS system implicates provisions related to "Prior Privileges" and "technological changes" in the CBA, as well as hours and wages. The court concluded that it could not say with "positive assurance" that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Consequently, the court denied Stop & Shop's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionArbitrabilityLabor DisputeLMS SystemUnion RightsEmployer Management RightsFederal CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holguin Exrel. Rubio v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo

This Texas appellate court opinion addresses whether tribal sovereign immunity bars a private suit under the state's dram shop act. The case involves the survivors of Rosa Sifuentes, who became intoxicated at the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo casino and later died in an off-reservation car accident. The plaintiffs sued the Tribe for wrongful death and negligence under the Texas Dram Shop Act. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that while the Tribe is subject to state alcohol regulations, its sovereign immunity protects it from private civil suits seeking money damages under the Act.

Tribal ImmunityDram Shop ActAlcohol RegulationSovereign ImmunityIndian TribesTexas LawPersonal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brendan Van Voris and Josephine Durkin v. Team Chop Shop, LLC D/B/A Chop Shop MMA Jerry Howell

Brendan Van Voris and his wife, Josephine Durkin, appealed a trial court's summary judgment dismissing their negligence and gross negligence claims against Team Chop Shop, LLC d/b/a Chop Shop MMA and Jerry Howell. The claims arose from an injury Van Voris sustained during an aikido course after signing a pre-injury release. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the negligence claims, finding the release met fair notice requirements. However, it reversed the summary judgment on the gross negligence claims, stating that pre-injury releases for gross negligence are against public policy and that such claims are not legally inseparable from negligence for the purpose of such a release. The case was remanded for further proceedings concerning the gross negligence claims.

pre-injury releasegross negligencenegligencesummary judgmentpublic policyexemplary damagesfair noticeexpress negligence doctrineconspicuousnessmartial arts injury
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1995

Stevens v. Spec, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals from an order in Tompkins County regarding an altercation at a nightclub where the plaintiff was struck by defendant John Ryan. The plaintiff sued Spec, Inc. (nightclub owner), Douglas Layaw (Spec's president), and John Ryan for assault, negligence (premises liability), and Dram Shop Act violations. The Supreme Court dismissed the assault claim but allowed the negligence and Dram Shop claims to proceed. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the assault claim, ruling Ryan was an independent contractor. Furthermore, it reversed the lower court's decision on the negligence and Dram Shop claims, finding the assault was unforeseeable and no commercial alcohol sale occurred, thus granting summary judgment to the defendants on all counts.

Independent ContractorPremises LiabilityDram Shop ActSummary JudgmentAssault and BatteryNightclub LiabilityAppellate ReviewScope of EmploymentIntoxicationForeseeability
References
13
Case No. 02-0381
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2006

F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. D/B/A Mr. Cut Rate 602 v. Xavier Duenez, and Wife, Irene Duenez, as Next Friends of Carlos Duenez and Pablo Duenez, Minors

This case addresses the applicability of Texas's proportionate responsibility scheme (Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code) to dram shop liability claims. The Supreme Court of Texas revisited and affirmed its holding in Smith v. Sewell, clarifying that the proportionate responsibility statute includes claims under the Dram Shop Act, meaning a dram shop is only responsible for its proportionate share of damages, not automatically all damages caused by an intoxicated patron. The Court reversed the lower court's judgment, which had found F.F.P. Operating Partners vicariously liable and had severed F.F.P.'s cross-action against the intoxicated driver, Ruiz. The Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion by severing the claim and refusing to submit jury questions on Ruiz's proportion of responsibility. The case was remanded for a new trial to allow for proper apportionment of responsibility among all liable parties.

Dram Shop ActProportionate ResponsibilityComparative ResponsibilityVicarious LiabilityNegligent EntrustmentProximate CauseStatutory InterpretationSeverance of ClaimsApportionment of DamagesIntoxication Assault
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casselberry v. Dominick

United Auto Workers Local No. 897 appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment in a Dram Shop Act case. Plaintiffs alleged injuries from an accident with defendant Dominick, asserting the local negligently provided him beer at a union event. The local contended it did not engage in a commercial sale of alcohol, a prerequisite for Dram Shop Act liability. Citing D’Amico v Christie, the appellate court agreed, noting the beer was purchased from membership dues and ticket sales, not for profit, and resulted in a deficit. The court concluded the self-service availability of beer at a non-profit event was not a commercial sale. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Dram Shop ActCommercial SaleAlcohol LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppealUnion EventPecuniary GainSelf-ServiceGeneral Obligations Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez

The case "F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez" involves a dissenting opinion from a Texas Supreme Court decision concerning the application of proportionate-responsibility statutes to Dram Shop Act claims. The Dueñez family sued F.F.P., a convenience store, after a head-on collision caused by an intoxicated driver who purchased alcohol from F.F.P., resulting in severe injuries. Justice O'Neill's dissent argues that the majority's decision erred by undermining the Dram Shop Act's derivative-liability component, which holds providers responsible for their customers' actions and ensures full recovery for innocent third parties. The dissent contends that the legislative intent was to deter alcohol sales to obviously intoxicated individuals and protect public welfare, a policy compromised by the majority's interpretation that shifts responsibility to potentially insolvent patrons.

Dram Shop ActProportionate ResponsibilityVicarious LiabilityComparative NegligenceAlcoholic Beverage CodeThird-Party InjuryIntoxicated DriverLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raynor v. MOORES MACHINE SHOP, LLC

Joseph Lynn Raynor was electrocuted while welding on the premises of Moores Machine Shop, LLC. His parents, Jimmy Raynor and Ruby Lewis, individually and as representatives of Joseph’s estate, sued Moores for negligence and gross negligence. Moores moved for summary judgment, asserting claims were barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act (arguing Joseph was an employee) or Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 95 (arguing Joseph was an independent contractor). The trial court granted summary judgment for Moores. On appeal, the Raynors contended the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. The appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding Joseph's employment status, precluding summary judgment under both grounds. The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation ActIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentNegligenceGross NegligenceWorkplace FatalityElectrocution AccidentRight of Control TestTexas Law
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 6,911 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