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. 05-17-01421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2018

in Re: Enterprise Crude Oil, LLC

This legal document is Magellan Crude Oil Pipeline Company, L.P.'s (Real Party in Interest) response to an Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Enterprise Crude Oil, LLC (Relator). The core dispute revolves around Enterprise's alleged breach of a Crude Oil Distribution Agreement, specifically its 10-year commitment to exclusively use Magellan's Houston-area crude oil distribution facilities. Enterprise sought to prevent discovery, claiming requests were overbroad, burdensome, and sought trade secrets or inadmissible parol evidence. Magellan argues the mandamus should be denied, asserting its discovery requests are relevant to contract breach, fraud, and promissory estoppel claims, and that Enterprise's objections lack merit given Magellan's contractual audit rights. The document concludes by advocating for the denial of Enterprise's mandamus petition.

Contract DisputeMandamusDiscovery OrderTrade SecretsParol EvidenceSummary JudgmentRequirements ContractPipeline TransportationCrude OilGood Faith
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Exotic Island Enterprises

This case involves appeals by Exotic Island Enterprises and Sliffer Enterprises, Inc., corporations owned by Keith Slifstein, against decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Department of Labor had initially determined that exotic dancers performing at their venues, Fantasy Island Gent Club and Pleasure Island II, were employees, leading to assessments for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the corporations exercised sufficient direction and control over the dancers to establish an employment relationship. Factors included Slifstein's involvement in dancer selection, scheduling, pricing for private dances, retention of a percentage of earnings, and provision of performance infrastructure. The court also noted the corporations' failure to provide remuneration documentation, allowing the Department to assess contributions based on available information.

Unemployment Insurance AppealExotic Dancers Employee StatusEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance ContributionsAdministrative Law Judge DecisionWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBusiness Operations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sherman Simon Enterprises, Inc. v. Lorac Service Corp.

This case before the Texas Supreme Court concerns a deceptive trade practices claim brought by Lorac Service Corporation against Sherman Simon Enterprises, Inc., a Hertz franchisee. Lorac alleged that Sherman Simon Enterprises misrepresented that its automobile rental agreement provided liability insurance coverage and subsequently refused to honor this coverage after an accident involving a Lorac employee. While the trial court and court of appeals found in favor of Lorac, awarding treble damages and attorney's fees, Sherman Simon Enterprises appealed, challenging Lorac's consumer status and the sufficiency of evidence for misrepresentation. The Supreme Court upheld Lorac's qualification as a consumer under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. However, the court ultimately concluded there was no evidence of misrepresentation, as Sherman Simon Enterprises did provide the promised liability coverage through its insurer, even though the insurer initially refused to defend Lorac. Consequently, the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of Sherman Simon Enterprises.

Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Consumer StatusAutomobile Rental AgreementLiability Insurance CoverageMisrepresentationAgencyCorporation as ConsumerInsurance Contract BreachAppellate ReviewTexas Supreme Court
References
10
Case No. 2018-08-1394
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2019

Johnson, Frederick v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car

Frederick Johnson, a service technician, sustained injuries when a co-worker accidentally struck him with a van at Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Enterprise denied his claim, asserting his injuries resulted from horseplay and willful misconduct, which the employer prohibited. However, the Court found insufficient evidence to support the horseplay defense, concluding instead that the incident stemmed from a miscommunication and the co-worker's improper driving. The Court ruled that Mr. Johnson is likely to prevail on the merits, granting him medical and temporary total disability benefits. Enterprise was ordered to cover incurred medical expenses, provide a panel of physicians, and pay $885.95 in temporary total disability.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingHorseplay DefenseWillful MisconductMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityCredibility AssessmentMiscommunicationEmployee InjuryEmployer Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Cantarella

This case involves several defendants indicted for enterprise corruption and related crimes concerning a criminal enterprise known as the "Post Circulation Crew" operating within the New York Post's circulation department. The enterprise, associated with the Bonnano crime organization, engaged in extortion, coercion, falsification of business records, larceny, and bribery for financial gain. Schemes included usury, influencing union rules, larcenous "returns" schemes, and payroll scams involving non-existent employees. The court addresses the defendants' arguments regarding the vagueness of the enterprise corruption statute and the interpretation of "pattern of criminal activity" and "individual culpability." It provides a detailed analysis of the evidence for each defendant. The court ultimately dismisses the enterprise corruption count against Richard Cantarella, Vincent DiSario, Anthony Michele, Gerard Bilboa, Corey Ellenthal, and Michael Fago due to insufficient evidence of three connected criminal acts or intent to further the criminal enterprise. However, the enterprise corruption count is sustained for Anthony Turzio based on his involvement in forgery and conspiracy to commit grand larceny in the "Murro" payroll scheme.

Enterprise CorruptionOrganized CrimeRacketeeringCriminal EnterprisePattern of Criminal ActivityGrand LarcenyForgeryFalsifying Business RecordsConspiracy to DefraudSufficiency of Evidence
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc.

The Garcias, family of Rosario Michelle Garcia, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc., their employer, following Mrs. Garcia's death during a robbery at her workplace. Mrs. Garcia died after pursuing a shoplifter, contrary to company policy, and was run over by a fleeing vehicle. The Garcias brought a wrongful death suit, alleging employer negligence, while J.J.S. Enterprises asserted unforeseeability, lack of proximate cause, and a pre-injury waiver. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that the pre-injury waiver Mrs. Garcia signed was valid and enforceable, thereby barring the Garcias' negligence claims. This decision upheld that such waivers, made before June 17, 2001, are not against public policy under Texas law if the employee had actual knowledge of the waiver's terms.

Wrongful DeathNegligence ClaimSummary JudgmentPre-injury WaiverEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanOccupational AccidentNon-subscriber EmployerPublic PolicyExpress Negligence DoctrineFair Notice Requirements
References
24
Case No. 14-12-00198-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2013

Zuleima Olivares. Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Pedro Olivares, Jr., and Pedro Olivares, Individually v. Brown & Gay Engineering and Mike Stone Enterprises, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by Zuleima Olivares and Pedro Olivares (Appellants) against the granting of pleas to the jurisdiction for Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc. and Mike Stone Enterprises, Inc. (Appellees). The Appellants had sued the Appellees for negligence and premises defects following a fatal accident on the Westpark Tollway. Appellees claimed governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act, arguing they functioned as governmental employees. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals examined whether the Appellees met the statutory definition of governmental employees or were independent contractors. The court ultimately concluded that both Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc. and Mike Stone Enterprises, Inc. were independent contractors, thus not entitled to governmental immunity. Therefore, the trial court's decision was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Governmental immunityTexas Tort Claims ActIndependent contractorGovernmental employeePlea to the jurisdictionNegligencePremises defectRight to controlTort liabilityAppellate review
References
34
Case No. 10-05-00382-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2007

Trail Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A Wilson Oil Company, Thomas G. Rogers, Catherine Baumann, Carolyn Whipple, Mrs. S. Kelley Bruce, John Hobbs Kelley, Mary Virginia Kelley Ingram, Daystar Oil & Gas Corporation, John Alexander, Rebecca Bruce Jones v. the City of Houston

This appeal addresses Trail Enterprises' inverse-condemnation claim against the City of Houston due to an ordinance banning oil drilling on their property near Lake Houston. The trial court initially found the City liable and a jury assessed damages, but later dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, deeming the claims unripe. The appellate court examined whether Trail's claims were ripe, particularly regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies. It concluded that the claims were ripe upon the ordinance's enactment, as a permit application would have been futile. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a judgment in favor of Trail Enterprises, awarding substantial damages and interest, and transferring mineral rights to the City of Houston.

Inverse condemnationoil drilling prohibitionripeness doctrineadministrative remedies exhaustionregulatory takingproperty rightssummary judgmentTexas appellate lawmunicipal ordinanceLake Houston
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bruno v. Dynamic Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves a personal injury action where Dynamic Enterprises, Inc. appealed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Dynamic contended it was engaged in a joint venture with Executive Club International, Inc. (ECI), the plaintiff's employer, arguing for dismissal based on workers' compensation exclusivity. However, the court found no joint venture, noting Dynamic and ECI were separate corporate entities, filed separate tax returns, and did not share income or losses. Consequently, Dynamic's workers' compensation defense was dismissed, and the judgment was unanimously affirmed with costs.

Personal InjuryJoint VentureWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityCorporate LiabilityAffirmation of JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipNegligenceBusiness LawLegal Precedent
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 762 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