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. 03-07-00509-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2009

in Re General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Division and Austin Chevrolet, Inc. D/B/A Munday Chevrolet/Geo

This original proceeding involves the district court's plenary power over a suit inadvertently dismissed for want of prosecution while abated. The underlying suit by Landmark against General Motors and Austin Chevrolet was abated in 2001. In 2003, the district court inadvertently dismissed the suit. In 2007, the trial court vacated the dismissal and reinstated the suit. Relators General Motors and Austin Chevrolet sought a writ of mandamus, arguing the 2007 order was void because it was issued after the expiration of the district court's plenary power. The Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ, holding that the 2003 dismissal was not void, and thus the district court's plenary power had expired, making the 2007 order void.

mandamusplenary powerdismissal for want of prosecutionabatementsubject-matter jurisdictionvoid ordersjudicial discretionadministrative remediesTexas appellate procedurecivil procedure
References
50
Case No. 03-97-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 1998

Young Chevrolet, Inc. v. the Texas Motor Vehicle Board Jupiter Chevrolet-Geo, Inc., D/B/A Newman Chevrolet And General Motors Corp.

Young Chevrolet, Inc. appealed the district court's judgment which affirmed a final order by the Texas Motor Vehicle Board. The Board had granted Jupiter Chevrolet-Geo, Inc.'s application to relocate its dealership, despite Young's protest. Young challenged the Board's jurisdiction, the dismissal of its independent due process claim, alleged procedural irregularities including ex parte communications, and the trial court's exclusion of evidence. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the Board had jurisdiction and its actions were lawful. The court also found no error in the dismissal of Young's due process claim and upheld the trial court's findings regarding the ex parte communications and the exclusion of evidence.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewEx Parte CommunicationDue ProcessAgency JurisdictionMotion for RehearingProcedural IrregularitiesAutomobile DealershipRelocation ApplicationStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. 01-02-01008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2003

Landmark Chevrolet, Corp. & Bill Heard Chevrolet, Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, 'the dealerships') against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company ('Universal'). The dealerships were sued in two underlying class-action lawsuits by customers alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud due to being charged a 'Consumer Services Fee' for a worthless coupon book. Universal, the dealerships' insurer, declined to defend them under their Statute and Title E&O (STEO) coverage, which only covered claims arising from violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws. Universal then filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. The trial court granted summary judgment in Universal’s favor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the 'eight-corners rule' and concluding that the underlying petitions did not allege facts indicating violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws, and declined to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-Lending LawsTruth-in-Leasing LawsDeclaratory JudgmentClass Action LawsuitsTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer Services FeeAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. 01-22-00386-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2023

Charlie Thomas Chevrolet, Ltd D/B/A AutoNation Chevrolet Gulf Freeway v. Phillip Schultz

AutoNation Chevrolet Gulf Freeway appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration against Phillip Schultz. Schultz, a former employee, sued AutoNation for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and fraud, stemming from allegedly deficient repair work on his vehicle. AutoNation argued that Schultz's claims fell under an employment arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the arbitration agreement was limited to employment-related disputes and did not encompass consumer disputes like those brought by Schultz, even though the repairs began during his employment.

Arbitration AgreementConsumer DisputeEmployment-Related ClaimsTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActBreach of ContractBreach of Express WarrantyFraudScope of ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActAppellate Review
References
21
Case No. 2019-01-0653
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2020

Bloodsaw, Talisha v. Alexian Brothers Community Services d/b/a Alexian Brothers PACE

Talisha Bloodsaw, a PACE driver, alleged a chest wall injury on July 18, 2019, while preventing a patient from falling and assisting him into a walker. She sought emergency treatment, but Alexian Brothers refused payment, asserting the incident did not occur. Conflicting testimonies from Ms. Bloodsaw, her supervisor, Terry Black, and the patient's daughter, Debra Wooten, as well as discrepancies in medical records, led the Court to conclude that Ms. Bloodsaw failed to demonstrate a compensable injury. Consequently, the Court denied her request for payment for emergent care.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingChest Wall InjuryPatient AssistanceConflicting TestimonyDenied ClaimTennessee LawMedical RecordsEmergency CareEmployment Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landmark Chevrolet Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (the dealerships) against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company (Universal). The dealerships sought to overturn a judgment declaring that Universal had no duty to defend them in two underlying class-action lawsuits. These lawsuits, brought by customers, alleged violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud related to a 'Consumer Services Fee.' Universal denied coverage under the Statute and Title E&O (STEO) policy, arguing that the underlying petitions did not allege truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing violations as required by the policy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in Universal's favor, upholding the application of the 'eight-corners' rule and declining to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-LendingTruth-in-LeasingDeceptive Trade Practices ActSummary JudgmentExtrinsic EvidenceAutomobile SalesClass Action
References
8
Case No. 06-00-00157-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2001

Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. v. Greg Nichols

Greg Nichols sued Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. after suffering a lower back injury from a slip and fall in their store. A jury awarded Nichols $522,600.00 in damages, finding Brookshire Brothers 85% responsible and Nichols 15% responsible. Brookshire Brothers appealed, challenging the factual sufficiency of evidence regarding the fall, the apportionment of responsibility, and the $100,000.00 award for future medical expenses. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support all contested jury findings, particularly concerning Nichols' ongoing pain and long-term medical needs as supported by expert testimonies.

Slip and FallPersonal InjuryNegligenceDamagesFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyComparative FaultFuture Medical ExpensesWorkers' CompensationHerniated Disc
References
17
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05190 [198 AD3d 1280]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2021

Mansour v. Paddock Chevrolet, Inc.

Plaintiff Hanna G. Mansour, a car salesman for Paddock Chevrolet, Inc., sustained personal injuries during a test drive with a customer, Kent P. Neubeck, when their vehicle collided with another operated by Santino C. Lococo. Mansour received workers' compensation benefits. Paddock Chevrolet, Inc. moved to dismiss the amended complaint and cross claims against it, asserting they were barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The Appellate Division modified the order, dismissing the amended complaint against Paddock Chevrolet, Inc. on the grounds of employer immunity, but affirmed the denial of dismissal for the cross claims, converting them into third-party complaints, stating that the determination of 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 was premature without discovery.

Workers' Compensation LawEmployer ImmunityVicarious LiabilityDual Capacity DoctrineGrave InjuryCross ClaimsThird-Party ComplaintsPersonal InjuryMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 03-95-00298-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 1995

Turner Brothers Trucking Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Texas and Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility

Turner Brothers Trucking Company, Inc. appealed a district court judgment affirming an order by the Commissioner of Insurance. The appeal concerned a retroactive premium increase in its workers' compensation insurance policy by the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility and the Facility's authority to offset this balance against a refund owed to Turner Brothers. Turner Brothers argued that the retroactive increase was impermissible under the applicable Manual rules and policy terms, and that the Facility lacked the authority to offset the outstanding balance. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, finding the Commissioner's interpretation of the Manual to be reasonable and consistent with the policy terms regarding the retroactive change in the experience modifier. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Facility had the authority to offset the debt and credit as they arose from sufficiently related transactions concerning workers' compensation insurance coverage.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceRetroactive PremiumExperience ModifierInsurance Policy OffsetAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewTexas Insurance CodeWorkers' Compensation FacilityPremium AdjustmentInterstate Operations
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Poser v. Gene Mohr Chevrolet Company

The appellant, Mr. Poser, sued Charles N. Hoke and Gene Mohr Chevrolet Company for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The jury awarded what appellant considered insufficient damages for lost wages, pain, and medical expenses, despite evidence of a protruding lumbar disc and aggravation of pre-existing conditions. Key issues included the overwhelming weight of evidence regarding injury causation, whether Hoke was in the scope of employment, and the court's jury instructions on damages. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of Gene Mohr Chevrolet Co., finding Hoke was not acting within the scope of employment. However, it reversed and remanded the judgment against Hoke due to an error in the jury charge that restrictively omitted consideration of subsequent aggravation of injuries by the initial collision.

Automobile AccidentPersonal InjuryDamagesJury FindingsAggravation of Pre-existing ConditionProximate CauseJury Instruction ErrorReversed and RemandedScope of EmploymentNegligence
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 381 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