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. 03-97-00067-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1998

Destec Energy, Inc., Destec Operating Company, Cogen Lyondell, Inc., and Lyondell Petrochemical Company v. Houston Lighting & Power Company

This Texas Court of Appeals case addresses whether a partnership formed by Destec Energy, Inc. and Lyondell Petrochemical Company, which generates and distributes electricity to its partners, requires a certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) from the Public Utility Commission (PUC). Appellants argued for a 'self-use' exemption based on the aggregate theory of partnership. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that under the Texas Revised Partnership Act (TRPA), a partnership is a distinct entity from its partners, thus precluding the application of the self-use exemption for electricity distributed from the partnership to its partners. The decision emphasizes the entity theory of partnerships for regulatory purposes.

Utility RegulationPartnership Entity TheoryElectricity DistributionCertificate of Convenience and NecessityStatutory ExemptionTexas LawAppellate DecisionPublic Utility CommissionEnergy LawCorporate Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District Council No. 9 v. APC Painting, Inc.

Plaintiff District Council No. 9 (the Union) initiated this action under the Labor Management Relations Act to enforce several arbitration awards against APC Painting, Inc., its related APC and Apollo entities, and individual Gregory Fucci. The Union sought to confirm awards from the Joint Trade Committee (JTC) regarding violations of a collective bargaining agreement, including underpayment of wages and employment of non-union workers. Defendants moved to dismiss claims against Fucci and the Apollo entities, arguing non-participation in arbitration and denial of alter ego liability. Magistrate Judge Gorenstein denied the defendants' motion, allowing the alter ego theory to be pursued, and granted the Union's motion for partial summary judgment. The court confirmed the arbitration awards against the APC entities, affirming the limited judicial review of such awards and rejecting defendants' objections.

Labor LawArbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLMRA Section 301Alter Ego DoctrineCorporate Veil PiercingSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissWage ViolationsFringe Benefits
References
85
Case No. 03-19-00469-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

Andrew Sansom Heinz Stefan Roesch Bee Spring, Ltd. Hays County And City of Kyle v. Texas Railroad Commission

A group of landowners and governmental entities (appellants) sought to enjoin the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline owned by Permian Highway Pipeline, LLC, and Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline, LLC. They appealed a district court's decision that sustained a plea to the jurisdiction by the Texas Railroad Commission and granted summary judgment to the Pipeline Entities. The appellants challenged the Commission's Rule 70 under the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to establish pipeline routing standards and sought declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the APA claim improperly targeted the absence of a rule rather than its validity, and the UDJA claim lacked a viable legal theory. The court also rejected the appellants' constitutional arguments regarding due course of law, special privileges, and legislative delegation concerning the pipeline entities' eminent domain powers.

Eminent DomainNatural Gas PipelineTexas Railroad CommissionAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional ChallengeSovereign ImmunityLegislative DelegationDue Course of LawSeparation of Powers
References
36
Case No. 10-99-190-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 1999

City of Ennis, a Self-Insured Governmental Entity v. William J. Bryant

William J. Bryant filed a lawsuit against the City of Ennis seeking worker's compensation disability benefits due to a heart attack sustained during his employment as a police officer. A jury found in favor of Bryant, prompting the City of Ennis to appeal the decision. Prior to a ruling on the appeal, both parties reached a settlement agreement and filed an 'Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Cause'. In response, the Tenth Court of Appeals, citing Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a) and 43.2(e), granted the motion, vacated the trial court's judgment, and dismissed the case, with costs taxed against the party incurring them.

Worker's CompensationDisability BenefitsHeart AttackPolice OfficerAppellate ReviewSettlement AgreementDismissal of AppealVacated JudgmentSelf-Insured EmployerGovernmental Entity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Malena v. Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC

Fredda Malena, a former executive assistant, brought claims against Victoria's Secret entities and Ann O’Malley for pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under federal and New York state/city laws. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss these claims. The court, led by District Judge J. Paul Oetken, granted the motions in part and denied them in part. O’Malley was found not liable for FMLA retaliation and direct NYSHRL discrimination but may be liable for NYSHRL retaliation, NYCHRL claims, and aiding and abetting. The Corporate Defendants' summary judgment motion was denied for discrimination and FMLA/NYSHRL/NYCHRL retaliation, but granted for aiding and abetting and the spread-of-hours claim.

Pregnancy DiscriminationFMLA RetaliationNYSHRL DiscriminationNYCHRL DiscriminationSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityIndividual LiabilityMixed MotiveReduction in ForceRetaliation Claims
References
58
Case No. 08-06-00058-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2007

in the Matter of Raul G. Sanchez, Twilah Sanchez v. State Office of Risk Management, a Self-Insured Governmental Entity

This is an appeal from a no-evidence summary judgment granted in favor of the State Office of Risk Management (SORM). Twilah Sanchez sought workers' compensation benefits after her husband, Raul Sanchez, died following a work-related single-car accident. SORM denied the claim, asserting Raul was intoxicated at the time of the accident based on blood alcohol tests taken hours after the incident. Sanchez presented expert testimony challenging the reliability of retrograde extrapolation, but her expert could not definitively state that Raul was not intoxicated. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Sanchez failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact that her husband's blood alcohol content was less than 0.08 at the time of the accident.

Intoxication DefenseSummary JudgmentNo-evidence Summary JudgmentRetrograde ExtrapolationBlood Alcohol Content (BAC)Expert TestimonyBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewAutomobile AccidentDeath Benefits
References
9
Case No. 04-24-00606-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2025

Michael Shalit D/B/A Kimberly Investment Company, Lynzara-Austin Real Estate Management, LLC, as General Partner of Kendall County Development Company, L.P., and as General Partner of Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Robyn Real Estate Investments, L.P., Robyn Utility Investments, L.P., and Robyn Utility Investments Management, LLC v. Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Kendall County Development Company, L.P., Kendall County Utility Company, Inc., Tapatio Springs Utility Holdings, L.P., and Tapatio Springs Hospitality Holdings, L.P.

This memorandum opinion addresses an appeal from a summary judgment granted by the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas. Appellants, collectively known as the Shalit Entities, appealed a summary judgment in favor of Appellees, the Tapatio Entities, which barred the Shalit Entities' counter-claims due to the four-year statute of limitations. The Shalit Entities' claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel, arose from a soured business partnership. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the Shalit Entities failed to sufficiently plead acknowledgment of debt to defeat the limitations defense. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that special exceptions were a prerequisite to summary judgment on limitations grounds and affirmed the severance of claims.

Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractStatutory FraudDeclaratory ReliefBusiness Partnership DisputeReal Estate VentureAppellate ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Case No. 03-98-00056-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1998

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. Peakload Inc. of Bexar County Peakload Personnel Services, Inc. Peakload Inc. of Texas Peakload Inc. of Harris County Peakload Inc. of America Yolanda Canales Dowdy, Individually and in Her Corporate Capacity

The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility (Facility) sued Peakload corporations and Dowdy family members (appellees) seeking to recover additional workers' compensation insurance premiums. The Facility alleged fraud and breach of contract, asserting that the appellees operated as a single employer and misrepresented their corporate structure to evade higher debit modifiers. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the Facility failed to conclusively prove its "single employer" theory, as the Peakload corporations were legally distinct entities and did not meet the criteria for combinability under the Commissioner's rules for premium calculation.

Workers' CompensationInsuranceFraudBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate LawCorporate LawSingle Business EnterpriseExperience ModificationPremium Calculation
References
16
Case No. 09-CV-4074 (ADS)(AKT)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Gentiva Securities Litigation

This case involves a consolidated securities fraud class action filed by the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System (LACERS) against Gentiva Health Services, Inc., and several of its executives. LACERS alleged that Gentiva inflated its stock price by ordering medically unnecessary home health services and billing Medicare for them. After initial dismissals and amendments, the court addressed a motion for partial reconsideration. The court dismissed remaining claims against former CFO John R. Potapchuk and the corporate entity Gentiva but sustained Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against former CEO Ronald A. Malone, based on a theory of motive and opportunity related to insider stock sales.

Securities FraudClass ActionStock ManipulationMedicare FraudScienterMotive and OpportunityControl Person LiabilityPSLRARule 10b-5Securities Exchange Act of 1934
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Caravan Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiff Angel Martinez filed an action against Caravan Transportation, Inc., Caravan Transit, Inc., and Transport Workers Union, Local 100, alleging violations of ERISA, WARN, LMRA, and RICO. Martinez later withdrew his RICO and most ERISA claims. The defendants sought summary judgment on the remaining LMRA and WARN claims. The court granted summary judgment, determining that Martinez's LMRA claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that he failed to demonstrate the corporate defendants constituted separate entities, which was crucial for his 'follow the work' theory. Furthermore, the court dismissed the WARN claim, finding that Martinez and other employees did not suffer an 'employment loss' as defined by the act, given their prompt re-employment. Requests for attorney's fees from both sides were denied.

Employment LawLabor RelationsERISAWARN ActLMRARICOSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDuty of Fair RepresentationSingle Employer Doctrine
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,147 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