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. 03-13-00790-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2015

T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

This case involves a tortious interference with inheritance lawsuit. Richard T. Archer and family (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) sued T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson (Appellants/Cross-Appellees), co-executors of Ted M. Anderson's estate. The Archers alleged that Ted Anderson tortiously interfered with their inheritance from John R. 'Jack' Archer by causing Jack, after a debilitating stroke that left him mentally incapacitated, to sign new estate planning documents that disinherited the Archers in favor of charities. The Archers incurred significant attorney's fees and settlement costs in prior litigation to reinstate Jack's original estate plan, which favored them. A jury found Ted Anderson liable for tortious interference and awarded damages, which the district court modified to include an additional settlement amount with charities. The appellees are now seeking to affirm the liability finding and modify the damage award on cross-appeal.

Tortious Interference with InheritanceEstate Planning DisputeMental IncapacityUndue InfluenceFiduciary Duty BreachGuardianship ProceedingWill ContestAttorney's Fees as DamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
78
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05621 [187 AD3d 1623]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2020

Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig.

This case concerns the Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation, specifically an appeal and cross-appeal stemming from a jury verdict in favor of Lynn M. Stock, as executrix of the estate of James G. Stock, against Jenkins Bros. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, which had denied both parties' posttrial motions. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that asbestos from Jenkins Bros.' products was a substantial factor in causing the decedent's mesothelioma, rejecting the defendant's challenges to specific causation. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the jury verdict sheet's presentation of damages for loss of services and society.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaCausationExpert TestimonyJury VerdictPosttrial MotionsAppellate ReviewSubstantial FactorWarning DefectProduct Liability
References
8
Case No. 2-06-472-CV, 2-07-048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2009

in Re Gerald W. Haddock

Gerald W. Haddock filed a consolidated interlocutory appeal and mandamus proceeding challenging a trial court's order staying arbitration. Haddock initiated arbitration against William F. Quinn, Paul E. Rowsey, III, John Goff, Terry N. Worrell, Crescent Real Estate Equities Company (CEI), Crescent Real Estate Equities Limited Partnership (CREELP), and Crescent Real Estate Equities, Limited (CREE) after previously litigating related claims in court. The core issue was whether Haddock waived his right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process in a prior lawsuit concerning his options and alleged mismanagement by the Crescent Entities. The court determined it had jurisdiction to decide the waiver issue, rejecting Haddock's argument that the incorporation of AAA rules delegated this to an arbitrator. The court found that Haddock's extensive litigation, including seeking injunctive relief and summary judgment in the prior suit, constituted a substantial invocation of the judicial process. This prejudiced the defendants by forcing them to incur significant expenses. Consequently, the court held that Haddock waived his right to arbitrate these claims. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction.

ArbitrationWaiverJudicial ProcessFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationPrejudiceLitigation ConductOption ClaimsSeverance AgreementLimited Partnership Agreement
References
62
Case No. 2018 NYSlipOp 08059
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2018

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. A.O Smith Water Prods. Co.

This case involves an appeal in the New York City Asbestos Litigation where Mary Juni, as administratrix of Arthur H. Juni, Jr.'s estate, sued Ford Motor Company. Mr. Juni, who died of mesothelioma, was an auto mechanic exposed to asbestos from Ford vehicles. The core issue was whether the evidence sufficiently established that Ford's conduct was a proximate cause of Mr. Juni's injuries, particularly concerning the toxicity of asbestos in friction products after being subjected to high temperatures during manufacturing and use. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, finding the evidence insufficient to establish proximate causation under existing legal standards, specifically a missing link in the proof regarding the toxicity of the altered asbestos. Concurring opinions further elaborated on the failure to establish a connection between Ford's products and the decedent's exposure or the general causation related to altered chrysotile asbestos. A dissenting opinion argued that the jury's verdict, finding Ford 49% liable, was supported by sufficient evidence and not 'utterly irrational,' highlighting the evidence of Mr. Juni's exposure to asbestos-laden dust from Ford vehicle parts and Ford's internal recognition of asbestos dangers.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaProximate CauseProduct LiabilityToxicologyFriction ProductsChrysotile AsbestosExpert TestimonyJury VerdictAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estate of Fetterman Ex Rel. Fetterman v. King

This case is the second appeal in litigation between the Estate of Sherman Fetterman and John King regarding attorney fees owed to Fetterman's estate for legal services provided to King in securing a landfill permit in Scott County, Tennessee. In the first appeal, the contract for an $800,000 fee was deemed unenforceable, and the case was remanded to determine the quantum meruit value of Fetterman's services. The Trial Court subsequently awarded the Estate $350,000 plus prejudgment interest at 10%. The appellate court affirmed the $350,000 award but modified the prejudgment interest rate to 5%, remanding for recalculation of interest based on a prior deposit. The court emphasized that the Trial Court's factual findings regarding the quantum meruit value were supported by evidence and credibility determinations.

Attorney feesQuantum meruitContract enforceabilityLegal servicesLandfill permitPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewTrial court judgmentProfessional conductExpert testimony
References
11
Case No. 12-15-00033-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2015

in the Matter of the Estate of Ruby Renee Byrom

This is an Appellee's Brief in an appeal concerning the Estate of Ruby Renee Byrom. The primary issue revolves around the imposition of a constructive trust on Jerry Byrom's homestead property, which was constructed using estate funds, and the subsequent order for its sale. The Appellee argues that the Appellant's claims are barred by res judicata, as these issues have been previously litigated and decided adversely to the Appellant in two prior appeals, which were affirmed by the Tyler Court of Appeals and denied review by the Supreme Court of Texas. The brief also addresses the award of attorney's fees, contending it is valid given the prior rulings. The Appellee requests that the court affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Estate LawProbateConstructive TrustHomestead ExemptionRes JudicataAppellate ProcedureAttorney's FeesMisappropriation of FundsExecutor DutiesProperty Sale
References
41
Case No. 10-17-00260-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2019

Estate of Miriam Mae Pharris

Kathy Roux appealed the trial court's decisions regarding the estate of Miriam Mae Pharris. Roux, who previously represented Dennis Pharris, sought attorney's fees from the estate for services rendered to Dennis and also filed an application for funeral and burial expenses on behalf of Knorr, whom she did not represent. The trial court denied her application for attorney's fees, finding she was not entitled to compensation from the estate and that her filings were groundless and in bad faith. The court subsequently sanctioned Roux $6,800 in attorney's fees for Ford, the estate's administrator, and an additional $2,500 to deter future groundless filings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying Roux's attorney's fees, imposing sanctions, and setting the supersedeas bond.

Estate AdministrationAttorney SanctionsAppellate ProcedureProbate LitigationFrivolous FilingsAttorney's Fees DisputeAbuse of DiscretionTexas Estates CodeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeRules of Civil Procedure
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. 10-14-00157-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2015

Thomas H. Sinclair v. Estate of Fernando Ramirez and Eva Ramirez, Individually, and Personal Representative of the Estate of Fernando Ramirez, and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in a wrongful death and survivorship action. Appellant Thomas H. Sinclair challenges the verdict in favor of the Estate of Fernando Ramirez and Eva Ramirez. Fernando Ramirez died after an altercation at Sinclair's cabaret, following heavy drinking. The jury found Sinclair partly responsible, but the appellate court reversed the judgment, concluding that the appellees failed to present legally sufficient causation evidence directly connecting Sinclair’s purported negligence with the decedent’s death due to the lack of expert medical testimony ruling out other plausible causes.

NegligenceProximate CauseWrongful DeathSurvivorship ActionExpert TestimonyMedical CausationBlunt Force Head InjuriesAlcohol IntoxicationAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency
References
37
Case No. NO. 14-22-00879-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2024

Lasonthia Sandles, Individually as as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Christine Rollins v. Deanna Louise Laskoskie, as Administrator of the Estates of George Delbert Laskoskie, Sr., and Louise Clymer Laskoskie

Lasonthia Sandles appealed a no-evidence summary judgment in her claims against Deanna Louise Laskoskie, administrator of the estates of George and Louise Laskoskie, stemming from the fatal injury of Christine Rollins. Rollins, an in-home caregiver for the Laskoskies, died after being attacked by animals on their property, with conflicting theories on whether dogs initiated the attack before feral hogs. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that Sandles's expert report on dog involvement was conclusory and lacked scientific basis. The court found insufficient evidence, beyond mere surmise, to establish causation by the dogs for Sandles's claims of strict liability, negligent handling, or premises liability. The judgment highlighted that abundant evidence pointed towards wild hogs as the primary cause of Rollins's death.

Summary Judgment AppealNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentExpert Testimony ReliabilityConclusory EvidenceCausation ElementStrict Liability ClaimNegligent Handling ClaimPremises Liability ClaimAnimal Attack LitigationFeral Hog Attack
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 2,128 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