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

Estupinan v. Cleanerama Drive-In Cleaners, Inc.

The plaintiff, administratrix of Francisco Estupinan's estate, sued Cleanerama Drive-In Cleaners, Inc. and John Bellasario for damages after Bellasario, a fellow employee, assaulted and killed Estupinan. Cleanerama moved to dismiss, arguing the action was barred by the Workmen's Compensation Law, as an award had already been made. The court clarified that the exclusive remedy rule applies unless the employer actively instigated the assault, not merely through respondeat superior. Finding no evidence of Cleanerama's willfulness, the appellate court reversed the order denying dismissal and granted Cleanerama's motion to dismiss the complaint against it.

Employer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAssault in EmploymentRespondeat SuperiorIntentional Tort ExceptionMotion to DismissAppellate Court DecisionScope of EmploymentEmployer NegligenceWillful Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Sonic Drive-In of Angleton, Inc.

Majorie Marie Hall, an employee of Sonic Drive-In, sued Sonic and its manager, Michael Cantrell, for premises liability, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hall was injured when she cut her hand on a freezer cover left on the floor. Later, Cantrell allegedly assaulted her by grabbing her wrist to make her hold a french-fry scooper. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sonic and Cantrell on all claims. Hall appealed, arguing that material fact issues existed for her premises liability claim, the assault claim was improperly dismissed based on a faulty interpretation of intent, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was not even addressed in the summary judgment motion. The appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment, finding that Hall raised genuine issues of material fact for premises liability, that an 'intent to injure' is not the only element for assault, and that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was not properly addressed by the summary judgment motion.

Premises LiabilityAssaultIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment AppealEmployer LiabilityEmployee InjuryWorkplace SafetyForeseeabilityCause-in-FactActual Knowledge
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Z.A.O., Inc. v. Yarbrough Drive Center Joint Venture

Yarbrough Drive Center Joint Venture (Yarbrough) sued Z.A.O., Inc. (ZAO) for breach of contract, nuisance, and trespass after ZAO, a former tenant operating a gas station, failed to remove hazardous substances from the leased property in El Paso, Texas upon lease termination. Despite ZAO's efforts and a state commission letter indicating no further corrective action was necessary for ZAO, the trial court found ZAO liable for trespass and nuisance. On appeal, the court affirmed the breach of contract claim, finding sufficient evidence that the lease required ZAO to remove all toxic substances. However, the appellate court reversed the findings of malice, nuisance, and trespass due to insufficient evidence, particularly noting that the state commission's determination of no further action superseded common law trespass claims. Consequently, the awards for past and future rental losses were reversed, but those for repair costs and soil testing were affirmed. Attorney's fees were reversed and remanded for segregation, as recovery is limited to the breach of contract claim.

Breach of ContractNuisanceTrespassEnvironmental ContaminationHazardous WasteLease AgreementDamagesAttorney's FeesLegal SufficiencyFactual Sufficiency
References
51
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. 08-04-00179-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2005

Francisco Garcia, Individually and as Next Friend of Francisco Garcia, Jr., and Kevin Garcia, Minor Children v. J. J. S. Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A/ PDQ Drive-In Grocery

Francisco Garcia, individually and as next friend for his minor children, Francisco Garcia, Jr. and Kevin Garcia (the Garcias), appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc. (J.J.S. Enterprises). The case originated from the death of Rosario Michelle Garcia, who died during a robbery at her employer, PDQ Drive-In Grocery. Mrs. Garcia, a cashier, pursued a shoplifter against company policy, fell from a moving vehicle, and was fatally injured. The Garcias filed a wrongful death suit alleging negligence, but J.J.S. Enterprises moved for summary judgment citing a pre-injury waiver. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling the pre-injury waiver valid and enforceable, thereby barring the Garcias' lawsuit.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceSummary JudgmentPre-Injury WaiverOccupational Accident PlanNon-Subscriber EmployerTexas LawPublic PolicyFair NoticeActual Knowledge
References
21
Case No. 08-21-00044-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2022

Evelyn Garza, Individually, and on Behalf of Ruben Roberto Garza, Malorie Elissa Garza, Valerie Marie Garza, and Alice Hernandez Garza v. Adrian Darius Samuel, RDL Energy Services, LP, RDL Energy, LLC and JPH Holdings, LLC

This appellate opinion addresses the vicarious liability of employers (RDL Energy Services, LP, RDL Energy, LLC, and JPH Holdings, LLC) for a traffic accident caused by an employee (Adrian Samuel) while commuting to a remote oil field worksite. The case examines the "coming and going" rule and its "special mission" exception, where the employee was driving a company vehicle, was paid for travel time, and was directed to drive overnight. The court also considers a negligent entrustment claim against the employers. The court reverses the summary judgment for the employers on the vicarious liability claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact, but affirms the summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claim due to the remoteness of the employee's prior driving offenses.

Vicarious LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipComing and Going RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionNegligent EntrustmentOil Field IndustryTraffic AccidentSummary Judgment ReviewCourse and Scope of EmploymentTexas Appellate Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carmille A. v. David A.

In this Family Court Act article 8 family offense proceeding, the petitioner filed a supplemental petition alleging the respondent willfully violated a modified order of protection on two separate occasions in March 1994. The court found these violations and civilly committed the respondent to consecutive terms of incarceration totaling ten months. The respondent moved for reargument, citing the appellate authority of Matter of Vitti v Vitti, which held that Family Court Act article 8 prohibits consecutive commitments exceeding a total of six months. The presiding judge, Guy P. De Phillips, disagreed with the Vitti ruling, asserting that legislative history and public policy regarding domestic violence support the imposition of consecutive civil commitments for distinct violations, even if the cumulative term exceeds six months, provided they are separate offenses for Sixth Amendment purposes. Consequently, the court denied the respondent's motion for reargument, affirming its authority to impose such consecutive sentences.

Family LawDomestic ViolenceOrder of ProtectionContempt of CourtCivil CommitmentConsecutive SentencesFamily Court ActStatutory InterpretationJudicial DiscretionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. E1999-02204-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2000

State v. Treva Dianne Green

The defendant, Treva Dianne Green, appealed her conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) in Blount County. She challenged the sufficiency of evidence, the suppression of her statements, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and contended that the jury should have been instructed on reckless driving, also arguing her sentence and fine were excessive. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the DUI conviction and upholding the admissibility of her statements. The court also rejected claims of prosecutorial misconduct and the lesser-included offense argument, while modifying the sentencing judgment to reflect a 30% confinement percentage for rehabilitative programs but affirming the imposed fine.

Driving Under Influence (DUI)Criminal LawAppellate ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceMotion to SuppressProsecutorial MisconductJury InstructionsSentencing GuidelinesProbationMisdemeanor Conviction
References
60
Case No. M2011-01327-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2012

State of Tennessee v. Mel Lindsay Atwell

Mel Lindsay Atwell appealed a seven-year consecutive sentence for driving under the influence (fourth offense) and aggravated assault, arguing the trial court lacked sufficient proof for consecutive sentencing. The offenses occurred while he was on probation in Georgia. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court found the trial court appropriately considered Atwell's extensive criminal history and the fact that he committed the crimes while on probation as factors supporting the consecutive sentences under T.C.A. § 40-35-115(b)(1) and (6). The court concluded that ample evidence supported the trial court's decision.

DUIAggravated AssaultConsecutive SentencingCriminal HistoryProbation ViolationAppellate ReviewSentencing FactorsTennessee LawFelony ConvictionsEvading Arrest
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirkland v. State

The appellant, Kirkland, appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated, arguing significant errors related to interim jury service. He contended that jurors selected for his case were biased due to prior service on similar DWI cases before his trial began, requesting they be struck or a mistrial be declared. Additionally, Kirkland challenged the admission of extraneous offenses, specifically concerning unpaid traffic citations, and an allegedly improper question from the prosecutor during cross-examination. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the jury selection issues, and any errors concerning extraneous offenses or the prosecutor's question were cured by proper instructions to the jury.

Interim Jury ServiceDWI ConvictionJury Selection ChallengesJury BiasVoir Dire ExaminationExtraneous OffensesTraffic ViolationsAppellate ProcedureCriminal LawTexas
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 646 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