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. M2004-01910-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2005

Rickey W. Pendleton v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

Rickey W. Pendleton sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County for injuries sustained during his arrest by metropolitan police officers, alleging assault and battery and vicarious liability through respondeat superior. The trial court granted summary judgment for the government, ruling that a standalone respondeat superior claim was insufficient under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) for intentional torts, requiring a separate negligence claim against the governmental entity. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the GTLA mandates a direct showing of negligence by the governmental entity for intentional torts committed by its employees, and Pendleton failed to assert such a claim against the Metropolitan Government.

Governmental Tort Liability ActRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentIntentional TortsNegligenceAssault and BatteryPolice MisconductGovernmental ImmunityTennessee LawMunicipal Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 1978

Associated Builders & Contractors of Texas Gulf Coast, Inc. v. United States Department of Energy

This case concerns a request for a preliminary injunction filed by Gulf States, Inc., an electrical contractor, and the Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas Gulf Coast, Inc. against the Executive Branch of the federal government. The plaintiffs sought to prevent the Department of Energy (DOE) from proceeding with bids on the Bryan Mound Project until they could exercise their right to an administrative appeal of a revised wage determination issued by the Department of Labor. The court found that the initial wage determination was 'seriously and manifestly erroneous' and that the plaintiffs had been denied procedural due process because the government failed to adhere to its own regulations regarding administrative appeals. Citing the Accardi doctrine, the court emphasized that agencies must scrupulously observe their established rules. The court granted the preliminary injunction, affirming the plaintiffs' constitutional right to due process and ensuring their opportunity to perfect an administrative appeal before the Wage Appeals Board.

Due ProcessAdministrative LawWage DeterminationDavis-Bacon ActPreliminary InjunctionGovernment RegulationsLabor LawPublic ContractsStatutory InterpretationAgency Procedures
References
15
Case No. 02-23-00271-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2024

Russell Scott Donaldson, as Next Friend of His Grandchildren: L.A., R.A., A.A. and R.S.A., the Heirs of Robert John Aquino, III v. Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc.

Robert John Aquino, III, sued his employer, Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc., for premises liability and employment-related negligence after sustaining an injury from a nail at a worksite. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment on the premises liability claim and a take-nothing judgment on all claims, despite the motion only addressing premises liability. Aquino's heirs, through their next friend, appealed, contending that evidence existed to create a fact issue on the premises liability claim and that the judgment on the negligence claim exceeded the scope of the motion. The appellate court found that Aquino's deposition testimony provided more than a scintilla of evidence that Pro-Craft's crew created the dangerous condition, thus supporting an inference of knowledge. Additionally, the court ruled that the summary judgment on the negligence claim was erroneous as it was not addressed in the underlying motion. The trial court's summary judgment was therefore reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Premises LiabilityEmployment NegligenceSummary JudgmentNo-Evidence MotionDangerous ConditionEmployer LiabilityTexas Appellate LawAppellate ReviewCase ReversalCase Remand
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington v. East 87th & 88th Street Contracting Co.

This case addresses a motion to set aside a $75,000 verdict, focusing on the interpretation of the 1969 amendment to Labor Law section 241 concerning general contractors' liability for construction worker injuries. The plaintiff, injured in 1971 while working for a subcontractor, sued the general contractor, who then sought indemnification from the subcontractor-employer. The court analyzed conflicting appellate decisions regarding whether the amendment eliminated the requirement to establish the general contractor's active control over the work. Ultimately, the court concluded that the law regarding control remains unchanged and set aside the verdict, dismissing the complaints. The decision also delved into policy considerations concerning workmen's compensation as the exclusive remedy against employers and incentives for workplace safety.

Labor Law § 241General Contractor LiabilityConstruction Worker InjurySubcontractor IndemnificationWorkmen's Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationAppellate Division ConflictSafety RegulationsTort ActionEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. NO. 13-0605
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2015

University of Incarnate Word and Christopher Carter v. Valerie Redus, Individually, and Robert M. Redus, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Cameron Redus

This case addresses whether a private engineering firm, Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc., is entitled to sovereign immunity when sued for negligence while performing a contract for a governmental unit, the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority. The firm was responsible for designing road signs and traffic layouts for the Westpark Tollway. The Olivareses sued the firm after an intoxicated driver collided with their vehicle on the tollway, alleging negligent design. The trial court granted immunity, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' decision, holding that extending sovereign immunity to private contractors like Brown & Gay does not align with the doctrine's purpose of protecting the public fisc from unforeseen expenditures. The Court reasoned that private entities can manage risk through insurance and that their liability, unlike direct government liability, does not disrupt government fund allocation. The Court also emphasized that the firm exercised independent discretion in its design work, distinguishing it from situations where a contractor merely follows government directives.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityIndependent ContractorNegligenceTort Claims ActPublic Fisc ProtectionRisk ManagementContract LiabilityJudicial DiscretionTraffic Design
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vast Construction, LLC v. CTC Contractors, LLC

This opinion addresses a contract dispute between general contractor CTC Contractors and subcontractor Vast Construction. Vast appealed a judgment against it, arguing it did not breach the subcontract, and raised claims under the Texas Property Code's prompt payment and construction trust fund provisions, as well as challenging the award of attorneys' fees. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding that Vast breached the contract by abandoning the project. However, the court sustained Vast's fourth issue, ruling that attorneys' fees were improperly awarded to CTC under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 38.001 because Vast is a limited liability company, not an individual or corporation. The judgment was modified to remove all attorneys' fees for CTC, and affirmed as modified.

Contract disputeSubcontractor breachGeneral contractorTexas Property CodePrompt paymentConstruction Trust Fund ActAttorneys' feesLimited Liability CompanyAppellate courtJudgment modification
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Corpus Christi v. Acme Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

Amber Electric Company and Acme Mechanical Contractors, Incorporated, subcontractors, sued the City of Corpus Christi, the owner of a public building project, after the prime contractor, La Man Construction, abandoned the project and its payment bond was discovered to be fraudulent. The subcontractors sought recovery from the City on theories of quantum meruit, governmental taking without compensation, and the City's breach of a statutory duty by negligently approving a bogus payment bond. The trial court found in favor of the subcontractors. On appeal, the court reversed and rendered judgment against the subcontractors on the governmental taking and breach of statutory duty claims, finding no compensable claim or statutory liability against the City. The quantum meruit claim was reversed and remanded for a new trial, as there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the City was reasonably notified that the subcontractors expected payment directly from the City.

Quantum MeruitGovernmental TakingStatutory DutyPayment BondSubcontractor LiabilityPrime Contractor DefaultSurety Bond FraudPublic Works ContractConstruction LawNegligence
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2015

Sidney B. Hale, Jr. v. City of Bonham

The document comprises two appendices related to Texas law. Appendix A presents Chapter 101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, known as the Texas Tort Claims Act, which addresses governmental liability for torts, defining terms, outlining liability for governmental units, setting limitations on liability, and detailing procedural aspects. Appendix B includes sections from Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, concerning purchasing and contracting authority for municipalities, counties, and other local governments, with a focus on definitions, waivers of immunity for breach of contract, and limitations on adjudication awards.

Texas lawGovernmental immunityTort claimsMunicipal liabilityLocal governmentPurchasing authorityContracting authorityStatutory interpretationSovereign immunityCivil practice and remedies
References
0
Case No. MDL 381
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation

Defendants, manufacturers of Agent Orange, brought third-party actions against the United States government seeking indemnity and contribution for settlement payments made to veterans' wives and children. The government moved to dismiss these claims. The court reiterated that previous direct claims against the government by veterans, wives, and children were dismissed either by the Feres doctrine or for failure to prove a causal connection. The third-party plaintiffs and defendants concurred that Agent Orange causation could not be established with available evidence. Consequently, the court granted the government's motion, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act precludes recovery without government misfeasance, and dismissed all third-party claims against the government, along with any existing government claims against other parties.

Agent OrangeProduct LiabilityThird Party ActionIndemnityContributionFederal Tort Claims ActFeres DoctrineCausationMilitary VeteransClass Action Settlement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2009

Rice v. West 37th Group, LLC

Plaintiff's decedent, James Rice, a steamfitter, was injured in November 2004 after falling from a short, unsecured ladder while installing a sprinkler system. He commenced an action against the building owner, general contractor, and subcontractor Cord, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court dismissed claims against Cord and Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claims against other defendants, but granted plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against the owner and general contractor. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its decision, finding no readily available adequate safety device to absolve defendants of liability. The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and dismissed the appeal regarding spoliation sanctions.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold LawElevation-related injurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety DevicesWorker NegligenceAppellate DivisionSpoliation of EvidenceConstruction Accident
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 7,269 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