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. W2010-01496-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2011

Charles Roach and Joyce Roach v. Dixie Gas Company Ben Thomas Williams, Jr., Individually and as Owner and Manager of Dixie Gas Company Semstream, L.P. Santie Wholesale Oil Company, A Division of Blue Rhino Reliable Propane and John Does 1 through 10

Charles and Joyce Roach sued Dixie Gas Company and Benjamin Thomas Williams, Jr. for damages resulting from a propane explosion. The Roaches claimed numerous physical and psychological injuries, including PTSD, depression, hearing loss, and a speech disorder. While defendants admitted liability for property damage, they disputed causation for personal injuries, arguing the Roaches were not at the scene during the explosion. After a jury trial awarded zero damages, the Roaches appealed, challenging the admissibility of medical examinations, expert testimony, and deposition testimony, and the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the Rule 35 examinations or the admissibility of expert testimony, and concluded that material evidence supported the jury's verdict of zero damages.

Propane ExplosionPersonal InjuryEmotional DistressPTSDDepressionHearing LossSpeech DisorderMedical Expert TestimonyRule 35 ExaminationJury Verdict
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roach v. Dixie Gas Co.

Plaintiffs Charles and Joyce Roach filed a lawsuit against Dixie Gas Company and its owner, Benjamin Thomas Williams, Jr., alleging physical and psychological injuries from a propane gas explosion. The defendants admitted liability for property damage but disputed personal injuries and causation, claiming the plaintiffs were not present at the explosion site. After a jury trial, the jury found the explosion did not cause personal injuries and awarded zero damages. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the trial court's decisions regarding Rule 35 medical examinations, admissibility of defense expert testimony, and deposition testimony, as well as the jury's verdict. The Court affirmed the trial court's rulings and the jury's verdict, finding ample material evidence to support the finding of zero damages.

NegligencePropane ExplosionPersonal Injury ClaimPsychological InjuriesPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Hearing LossTinnitusMedical Expert TestimonyRule 35 ExaminationExpert Witness Admissibility
References
32
Case No. 03-98-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1998

Tana Oil and Gas Corporation and Teco Gas Marketing Company v. Garth C. Bates

This case is an interlocutory appeal from the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, regarding a class certification order. Appellants Tana Oil and Gas Corporation and Teco Gas Marketing Company challenged the certification of a class represented by Garth C. Bates and Richard G. Cernosek. The class action alleges breach of contract related to oil and gas royalties and breach of the implied covenant to market gas. Tana argued the trial court abused its discretion in finding commonality, predominance, and superiority for class certification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding no abuse of discretion in the preliminary ruling on merits or the findings supporting class certification.

Class ActionOil and Gas RoyaltiesBreach of ContractImplied Covenant to MarketClass CertificationCommonalityPredominanceSuperiorityInterlocutory AppealAbuse of Discretion
References
24
Case No. 14-02-00634-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2003

Phillips Petroleum Company, GPM Gas Corporation, Phillips Gas Marketing Company, Phillips Gas Company, and GPM Gas Trading Company v. Kathryn Aylor Bowden, Beulah Poorman Vick, Omer F. Poorman, Monte Cluck and Benny Ted Powell

This interlocutory appeal concerned a trial court's class certification order involving Phillips Petroleum Company and several affiliates as appellants, and royalty owners as appellees. The royalty owners alleged underpayment of royalties due to Phillips' inter-affiliate transactions. The appellate court reviewed the certification of three subclasses, scrutinizing the predominance of common issues and the adequacy of class representation under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The court found that individual issues predominated over common ones, particularly regarding lease interpretations and the intent behind various gas royalty agreements. Furthermore, issues of intra-class antagonism and the potential for res judicata to bar future claims were identified as problems. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Class ActionRoyalty PaymentsOil and Gas LeasesBreach of ContractImplied CovenantsExpress CovenantsClass CertificationPredominance of IssuesAdequacy of RepresentationRes Judicata
References
43
Case No. 01–04–01277–CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

Zapata County and Zapata Independent School District v. Conocophillips Company on Its Own Behalf and as Successor–by–merger to Conoco Inc. (f/K/A Continental Oil Company, Inc.) Brandywine Industrial Gas, Inc. Phillips Petroleum Company El Paso Production Oil and Gas Company

This opinion consolidates 19 separate suits filed by various Texas counties and school districts (Taxing Units) against numerous oil and gas companies (Oil Companies). The Taxing Units alleged fraud and conspiracy to defraud through schemes to undervalue oil and gas reserves for ad valorem tax purposes, leading to underpayment of taxes. The trial courts granted the Oil Companies' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the cases because the Taxing Units failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Texas Tax Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Tax Code provides the exclusive means for addressing such claims, establishing a pervasive regulatory scheme through the Appraisal Review Board, and offering remedies like challenging valuations or back-appraising omitted property. The court held that the Taxing Units cannot bypass the comprehensive statutory scheme by recharacterizing tax disputes as common-law fraud cases.

Ad Valorem TaxProperty ValuationTax FraudAdministrative RemediesExclusive JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeAppraisal Review BoardOil and Gas TaxationMineral InterestsExhaustion of Remedies
References
14
Case No. 13-02-136-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2005

Mission Resources, Inc., F/K/A Bellwether Exploration Co. and Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. and Coastal Oil & Gas USA. L. P. v. Garza Energy Trust

This case from the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals addresses an appeal by Mission Resources, Inc. (formerly Coastal Oil & Gas Corp.) against Garza Energy Trust, et al., concerning a $14 million judgment. Appellees alleged subsurface trespass caused by Coastal's hydraulic fracturing (fracing) of a well on an adjacent tract, leading to drainage of gas and gas condensate from their mineral leases. Other claims included breaches of good faith pooling and implied covenants. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on findings of subsurface trespass, malice, felony theft, and bad faith pooling, upholding the punitive damages award. However, the court reversed and remanded the issue of attorneys' fees, requiring segregation between recoverable and unrecoverable claims.

Hydraulic FracturingSubsurface TrespassOil and Gas LawMineral LeasesRoyalty DisputesPunitive DamagesCorporate MaliceFelony TheftBad Faith PoolingImplied Covenants
References
51
Case No. 01-21-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2023

GE Oil & Gas Pressure Control, L.P. v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.

This is an insurance subrogation case where Gemini Insurance Company, on behalf of its insured Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. (Carrizo), sued GE Oil & Gas Pressure Control, L.P. (GE) for damages from a well blowout. Carrizo alleged negligence, breach of contract, product liability, and breach of warranty. GE counterclaimed for Carrizo's negligence and indemnification. A jury found both parties negligent, but the trial court later disregarded Carrizo's negligence finding and awarded Carrizo over $2.5 million. On appeal, GE challenged Carrizo's standing, the disregard of the jury's verdict, and the enforceability of indemnity provisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding Carrizo had standing, GE failed to provide necessary expert testimony for Carrizo's negligence, and the indemnity clauses were unenforceable due to lack of signatory authority.

Oil and GasWell BlowoutNegligenceBreach of ContractProduct LiabilityBreach of WarrantyInsurance SubrogationIndemnity ClauseFair Notice RuleExpress Negligence
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Victory Energy Corporation, Smart Gas, LLC, and HCP Investments, LLC v. Oz Gas Corporation

This case involves an appeal by three business associations (Appellants) challenging a trial court's decision that named Oz Gas Corporation (Appellee) as the true leaseholder of disputed oil and gas land in Crockett County, Texas. The Appellants were also assessed damages for bad faith trespass. The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of a Substitute Trustee's Deed concerning the conveyance of oil and gas leasehold interests. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that Oz Gas Corporation holds exclusive title to the West Unit of the disputed land. The court also found that Appellants committed bad faith mineral trespass by relying on an outdated title opinion and failing to conduct proper due diligence, and upheld the joint and several liability for damages.

Oil and Gas LeasesMineral RightsTrespass to Try TitleBad Faith TrespassDeed ConstructionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLeasehold InterestProration UnitsRailroad Commission
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Intratex Gas Co. v. Beeson

This case is an appeal from an interlocutory order certifying a class action under Tex.R. Civ. P. 42. The Plaintiffs, Richard Beeson, Eclipse Oil & Gas, Inc., and O’Neill Properties, Ltd., brought a lawsuit alleging that Intratex Gas Company did not purchase natural gas in ratable proportions from over 900 producers. Intratex appealed the trial court's decision to certify the class, challenging the satisfaction of Rule 42 requirements including numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance, and superiority. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's determination using an abuse-of-discretion standard. Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that all prerequisites for class action certification under Rule 42 were met.

Class actionInterlocutory appealTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 42Natural gas productionUnratable takingOil and gas lawNumerosityCommonalityTypicalityAdequacy of representation
References
28
Case No. 13-06-352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2007

Endeavor Natural Gas, L.P., Acting Through Its General Partner, Eng Management, L.L.C., Formerly Known as Endeavor Natural Gas, L.L.C. v. Magnum Hunter Production, Inc., Prize Energy Resources, L.P., and Prize Operating Company

Endeavor Natural Gas, L.P. initiated a lawsuit against Magnum Hunter Production, Inc. and its affiliates, seeking to reclaim $766,472.72 in severance tax refunds and credits associated with oil and gas properties. The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of an Assignment and a subsequent Letter Agreement, specifically defining "expenses" and "revenues" related to the properties. Endeavor argued that the tax refunds constituted expenses, thus falling under the Letter Agreement which would entitle Endeavor to these funds. Conversely, Magnum Hunter asserted that these refunds were neither expenses nor revenues, meaning the broader terms of the Assignment, which favored Magnum Hunter, should govern. The trial court ultimately sided with Magnum Hunter, granting their motion for summary judgment and denying Endeavor's. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concurring that the severance tax refunds and credits did not fit the definitions of "expenses" or "revenues" within the Letter Agreement, thereby upholding that the Assignment's provisions, beneficial to Magnum Hunter, were applicable.

Contract DisputeSummary JudgmentOil and GasSeverance TaxTax RefundsContract InterpretationLegal DefinitionsTexas LawAppellate ReviewProperty Conveyance
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 475 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