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

Davis v. Davis (In Re Davis)

This appeal addresses whether 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(1), which makes exempt property liable for family support obligations, preempts Texas homestead law. Sandra Davis, the former wife, sought a turnover order to satisfy a $300,000 nondischargeable debt from her ex-husband, Thomas Cullen Davis', homestead. Cullen Davis and his current wife, Karen Joyce Davis, claimed the property as exempt under Texas law. The bankruptcy court denied Sandra's motion, concluding that Texas homestead law was not preempted and the Turnover Statute could not be used against exempt property. The District Court affirmed this decision, holding that § 522(c)(1) limits the lien-avoidance provisions of the Bankruptcy Code but does not provide a mechanism for execution on exempt property. It affirmed that Texas law allows perfection of a lien on a homestead for such debts, but prohibits forced execution, thus not conflicting with federal law.

BankruptcyHomestead ExemptionPreemptionFamily Support ObligationsNondischargeable DebtTexas LawFederal Bankruptcy LawLien AvoidanceTurnover OrderProperty Law
References
41
Case No. 05-14-01265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2015

Azeb Ruder v. William Jordan D/B/A William Davis Realty, William Davis Real Estate Services, LLC

Azeb Ruder appealed the denial of her motion to dismiss defamation claims filed by William Jordan d/b/a William Davis Realty, William Davis Real Estate Services, LLC d/b/a William Davis Realty, and Kathy Jabri. Ruder's motion was filed under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA) after she posted a negative review of Kathy Jabri's real estate services on Zillow. Appellees claimed Ruder's statements were defamatory, specifically regarding the property being 'Temp Off Market' for over 100 days against her wish, other realtors' opinions, and questioning Jabri's competence. The appellate court found Ruder met her burden under TCPA. However, appellees failed to establish a prima facie case for defamation because the alleged false statements were either substantially true (regarding the duration of the 'Temp Off Market' status) or non-actionable statements of opinion (regarding competence or mental state). The court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the defamation claims, remanding for determination of costs and attorney's fees.

DefamationTexas Citizens' Participation ActTCPAFree SpeechReal Estate LawMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedurePrima Facie CaseSubstantial Truth DoctrineStatement of Opinion
References
22
Case No. 01-09-00737-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

Curtis Davis, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Terrence Lamoyne Davis v. Able Body Labor

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment regarding a deceased worker's compensation. The appellants, Curtis and Eva Davis, parents of the deceased Terrence Davis, challenged the employer's, Able Body Temporary Services, Inc.'s, workers' compensation exclusive remedy defense. The key issues involved the parents' authority to waive their son's workers' compensation coverage post-mortem, the employer's failure to notify the employee of his opt-out right, and the application of estoppel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that only an employee can waive coverage and that the employer's failure to provide notice does not negate the exclusive remedy provision.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentOpt-out ProvisionLegal BeneficiaryEstate AdministratorAffirmative DefenseEstoppelOpen Courts Provision
References
21
Case No. ADJ11369357, ADJ11369329
Regular
May 21, 2025

GLORIA DAVIS vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Gloria Davis, the applicant, sought reconsideration of Findings and Orders issued on February 7, 2025. The original orders found she sustained a lumbar spine injury but denied her Labor Code section 132a claim for discrimination. Davis contended that the F&O was a result of fraud and WCJ bias, specifically regarding her termination from Kaiser Foundation Hospital for alleged HIPAA violations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition, the defendant's answer, and the WCJ's report. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's credibility determination and finding no evidence that Davis was discriminated against due to her industrial injuries.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDGLORIA DAVISKAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICESINC.ADJ11369357ADJ11369329Oakland District OfficeOPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONpatient care technician
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Hall

This appeal arises from an automobile accident case where plaintiffs Ollie H. Davis and R.D. Davis sought damages for personal injury and property damage from defendant Horace Hall. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant on the original complaint and awarded him $700.00 on his counterclaim. Plaintiffs appealed, presenting nine issues for review. The issues included allegations of ex parte communication by the trial judge with the jury, disputes over discovery and the admission of recorded witness statements, the propriety of admitting evidence of a prior accident and a worker's compensation claim, objections to defense counsel's closing arguments, and jury instructions concerning insurance. The appellate court found all nine issues to be without merit, often citing a lack of timely objection or a failure to demonstrate prejudice. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Personal InjuryProperty DamageAutomobile AccidentNegligenceCounterclaimJury VerdictAppealEx Parte CommunicationDiscovery ViolationWitness Impeachment
References
10
Case No. AP-77,031
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2015

Davis, Franklin

This document is an appellant's brief in the case of Franklin Davis v. The State of Texas, appealing a capital murder conviction and death sentence from Dallas County. Davis was convicted of the capital murder of Shania Gray, allegedly to obstruct her testimony in a sexual assault case. The brief argues for reversal on multiple grounds, including Batson violations during jury selection, improper denial of motions to quash indictment and suppress evidence, and insufficient evidence to prove the "obstruction" element of capital murder. Additionally, Davis raises numerous constitutional challenges to Texas's death penalty scheme and jury instructions related to future dangerousness and mitigating circumstances. He contends his motive for the murder was revenge for Gray's false sexual assault allegations, not an attempt to prevent her testimony.

Capital MurderDeath PenaltyJury SelectionBatson ChallengeEvidentiary MotionsSufficiency of EvidenceObstruction of JusticeFuture DangerousnessMitigationConstitutional Law
References
92
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Butler

Plaintiff William A. Davis, a general employee of Livingston Services, Inc., was assigned to work for Andrew 'Andy' Butler, a general contractor. Davis sued Butler, but the Supreme Court erred in denying Butler's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court found that Davis was a special employee of Butler as a matter of law, meaning his action against Butler was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provisions. Despite Livingston paying wages and providing workers' compensation benefits, Butler maintained complete control and supervision over Davis's work. Therefore, the order of the Supreme Court was reversed, Butler's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against Butler was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeGeneral ContractorSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewEmployer ControlLabor LawNew York LawSteuben County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Tennessee Life Insurance Co.

Nancy Kway Davis, administratrix of Charles M. Davis's estate, appealed a take-nothing judgment in her suit against Tennessee Life Insurance Company. She sought to recover life insurance proceeds, contending there was no valid beneficiary designation. Charles Davis, an employee of Reading and Bates, was insured under group policies provided by Tennessee Life. Davis had designated his mother, Bessie Carr, as beneficiary in 1966. Although policy 637 was superseded by policy 1264, the jury found that Reading and Bates, authorized by Tennessee Life, issued a certificate for policy 1264 to Charles Davis, naming Bessie Carr as beneficiary. The court found no error in denying Nancy Kway Davis any interest in the proceeds, affirming the judgment that Bessie Carr was the valid beneficiary.

Life InsuranceBeneficiary DesignationGroup Insurance PolicyInsurance ProceedsAdministratrix ClaimCommunity PropertyChose in ActionAppellate ReviewInsurance CertificateEmployer-Provided Insurance
References
5
Case No. 06-10-00082-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2011

Gloria Lopez-Juarez, Individually and as of the Estate of Alejandro Juarez, and as Next Friend of Gloria Alejandra Juarez v. Huey Kelly, D/B/A Kelly Tours

Alejandro Juarez died following a multi-vehicle accident in Gregg County, Texas, involving a rear-end collision and a subsequent impact with a tour bus. His wife, Gloria Lopez-Juarez, sued Huey Kelly, d/b/a Kelly Tours, for negligence under the Texas Wrongful Death and Survival Statutes. Lopez-Juarez appealed the trial court's admission of Trooper Colby Hobbs' expert testimony and the denial of a negligence per se instruction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the admission of Hobbs' testimony, though erroneous due to his lack of qualifications, was harmless as it was cumulative. It also upheld the denial of the negligence per se instruction, concluding there was insufficient evidence of proximate cause between the statutory violation and the accident.

NegligenceAccident ReconstructionExpert WitnessAppellate ReviewHarmless ErrorProximate CauseMedical CertificateCommercial Motor VehicleWrongful DeathSurvival Statute
References
102
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. AutoNation USA Corp.

Laneisha Davis appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Autonation USA Corporation and its affiliates in an employment discrimination suit. Davis alleged race and gender discrimination, retaliation, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from her transfer and eventual resignation due to perceived unfair treatment and reduced pay after working as a finance manager. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, stating Davis failed to file her charge of discrimination within the 180-day statutory limit. Davis argued for a "continuing violation" theory and equitable tolling, but the court found her claims were time-barred as she was aware of the alleged discriminatory acts by November 9, 2001, at the latest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding it lacked jurisdiction due to the untimely complaint.

Employment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsHostile Work EnvironmentContinuing Violation DoctrineEquitable EstoppelRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTexas Labor CodeJurisdiction
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 426 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