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

Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Chemical Lime, Ltd.

Justice Willett concurs with the Court's judgment, agreeing that the Edwards Aquifer Authority became effective as per the Bar-shop opinion date. However, he emphasizes the unresolved fundamental legal question concerning when an appellate-court judgment becomes final and takes effect, which he believes warrants the Court's rulemaking attention. He argues that the mandate, rather than the opinion's issuance, should generally be considered the definitive date for a judgment's finality and enforceability, citing various rules and statutes that link finality to the mandate's issuance. Willett contrasts his view with arguments that judgments are effective upon issuance, highlighting the period before a mandate issues during which the court can still modify its decision. He concludes by reiterating his agreement with the Court's outcome in the present case but advocates for clear guidelines on judgment finality through the rulemaking process.

Appellate ProcedureJudgment FinalityMandateConcurring OpinionEdwards Aquifer Authority ActSupersedeasDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionTexas Supreme CourtLegal Practice
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Savings of America

Plaintiff Sandra R. Hall sued Defendant Savings of America for unlawful termination in retaliation for a worker's compensation claim and disability discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. A jury found in favor of Hall, determining the defendant unlawfully terminated her and discriminated based on disability, causing damages and justifying punitive damages. The Court denied the defendant's motion for judgment, new trial, and/or remittitur, upholding the jury's verdict and finding sufficient evidence. The Court granted in part the plaintiff's application for attorney's fees, awarding a total of $58,477.89 after adjustments and a multiplier for lead counsel's exceptional performance. Final judgment was rendered, ordering the defendant to pay Hall over $2.4 million in compensatory and punitive damages, along with pre-judgment interest and awarded attorney's fees and costs.

Worker's Compensation RetaliationDisability DiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActPunitive DamagesAttorney's FeesJury VerdictMotion for New TrialRemittiturReasonable AccommodationUndue Hardship Defense
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.

This civil action, brought by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice against Visa and MasterCard, alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act concerning governance and exclusionary rules. Following an earlier decision finding exclusionary rules anti-competitive, this Opinion addresses various proposed modifications to the court's Proposed Final Judgment. The court rejected anti-discrimination provisions and the exclusion of corporate and small business cards from the remedy. It clarified provisions regarding dual issuance of debit cards, the liability of Visa International, and modified the rescission period for agreements. Additionally, the court specified that MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy repeal applies only to issuers. The Final Judgment is set to expire in ten years.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCredit Card NetworksDebit Card ExclusivityFinal Judgment ModificationMarket CompetitionExclusionary PracticesFinancial ServicesCorporate CardsSmall Business Cards
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

XL Specialty Insurance v. Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd.

This memorandum opinion addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case originating from an explosion that killed two workers, one each from Kiewit Offshore Services, LTD (general contractor) and R.B.T. Welders, Inc. (subcontractor). Relatives of the deceased workers filed a negligence lawsuit. XL Specialty Insurance Company, RBT's insurer, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Kiewit, denying a duty to defend or indemnify. Kiewit, in turn, sought indemnification from RBT and coverage from XL. The Court granted Kiewit's motion for summary judgment in part, holding RBT must indemnify Kiewit for a $4 million settlement payment, specific attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest, finding Kiewit faced potential liability and the settlement was reasonable. The Court denied Kiewit's claim for undocumented expenses and denied XL's motion for summary judgment asserting statutory employer and borrowed servant defenses under workers' compensation laws for Kiewit, concluding these defenses were not applicable.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkers' CompensationInsurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer LiabilityContractual IndemnityBorrowed Servant DoctrineStatutory EmployerNegligence
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1996

McDill v. VSSI Tokyo, Inc.

This case concerns an order issued by District Judge Kent regarding the final judgment in an action brought by Richard D. McDill against VSSI Tokyo, Inc. under the Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Following a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $981,421, the court addressed disputed issues of court costs and pre-judgment interest. The court clarified the procedure for assessing costs, mandating a separate bill of costs after judgment entry. Crucially, the order determined that pre-judgment interest is permissible for past damages but not future damages in maritime cases, leading to a judicial allocation of the jury's award into past and future components for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of earning capacity. Additionally, the court affirmed the right of the intervenor, CIGNA Insurance Company of Texas, to recover pre-judgment interest on its compensation lien.

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPre-judgment InterestCourt CostsFuture DamagesPast DamagesMaritime LawFifth CircuitJury VerdictIntervenorCIGNA Insurance
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Environmental Chemical Corp.

Plaintiff Hall originally sued Defendant Environmental Chemical Corp. for personal injuries under the Jones Act and general maritime law, which were dismissed via summary judgment. Plaintiff then moved to alter judgment, amend the complaint to include LHWCA Section 905(b) and negligence claims, and for a new trial. The Court denied relief under LHWCA Section 905(b), ruling the craft was not a vessel for such purposes, and also denied the motion for a new trial. However, the Court granted leave for Plaintiff to amend the complaint to pursue a general negligence claim, converting the final judgment into a partial summary judgment. Defendant's motion for sanctions was denied.

Jones ActGeneral Maritime LawLHWCA Section 905(b)Vessel DefinitionSummary JudgmentMotion to Alter JudgmentMotion for Leave to AmendMotion for New TrialMotion for SanctionsNegligence Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2004

Maraia v. Valentine

The plaintiffs appealed from an order vacating a prior award of summary judgment in their favor and from a judgment, based on a jury verdict, dismissing their complaint in an action for breach of contract. The defendant, an electrical contractor, was accused by Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, of operating a nonunion business and failing to comply with union bylaws regarding the timely filing of charges. The Supreme Court properly vacated the summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact concerning compliance with the union's constitution. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order as direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment, but affirmed the final judgment, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentJury VerdictUnion BylawsAppellate ReviewProcedural LawLabor DisputeDismissal of ComplaintTriable Issue of FactInterlocutory Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1978

Lynn v. Southwestern Electric Power Co.

This Memorandum Opinion supports a final judgment in a personal injury case involving electrical burns suffered by plaintiffs Larry Lynn and John R. Tharpe while working with a wire line truck. The plaintiffs sued Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) for negligence after settling a strict liability claim against Harold Lee Engineering Company. A jury found both SWEPCO and the plaintiffs negligent, assigning 51% fault to SWEPCO and 49% to each plaintiff. The core issue addressed by the court was how to apply the prior settlement amount against the damages awarded, particularly concerning Texas's comparative negligence statute. The court affirmed the original judgment, denying SWEPCO's motion to amend and reducing the plaintiffs' damages solely by their comparative negligence percentage, ensuring they did not receive a double recovery or SWEPCO a double reduction.

Comparative NegligenceStrict LiabilityProducts LiabilityJoint Tort-feasorsSettlement CreditElectrical BurnsPersonal InjuryJury VerdictTexas LawMary Carter Agreement
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stewart v. MAGNUM TRANSCONTINENTAL CORP.

Plaintiff Stewart was allegedly injured twice while working on the vessel SSV LOUISIANA. Defendants Lantz Services, Inc. and Louisiana Overseas, Inc. moved for final summary judgment, arguing Stewart was not a seaman and thus limited to remedies under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Defendants contended the vessel was not "in navigation" during repairs and that Stewart lacked a "substantial connection" to it. The Court, presided over by Judge Kent, denied the motion, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding both the vessel's status and Stewart's connection, making summary judgment inappropriate for trial.

Seaman statusvessel in navigationsummary judgmentJones Actmaritime lawpersonal injurypipe-fitting workGalvestonindustrial accidentemployment law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Welsh v. Universal Fasteners, Inc.

John Welsh, an employee of Universal Fasteners, Inc., reported a right shoulder injury in 1996. His medical benefits claim, initially paid by Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Company, was later denied, leading Welsh to seek assistance from the Tennessee Department of Labor. A claims specialist initially supported his claim but later reversed, denying benefits and advising him of the one-year statute of limitations. Welsh subsequently filed suit in February 1998, arguing that the statute of limitations was suspended during the Department of Labor's review period. The court reversed the summary judgment against Welsh, concluding that the statute of limitations was indeed tolled from his request for assistance until the final denial, making summary judgment inappropriate. The case was remanded to the chancery court for a full hearing.

Statute of LimitationsTollingMedical BenefitsClaims SpecialistDepartment of LaborSummary JudgmentAppealHickman CountyRepetitive Strain InjuryShoulder Injury
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 19,721 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