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. 14-09-00718-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2011

Deborah Downing v. Don Burns and Sherry Burns

Deborah Downing sued Don and Sherry Burns for tortious interference and defamation after they alleged she stole trade secrets and threatened to sue her new employers. Downing, previously an assistant to Don Burns, copied parts of a policy manual she authored before resigning. The Burnses countersued for theft of trade secrets. A jury found in Downing's favor on all claims, but the trial court entered judgment only on tortious interference and theft. The appellate court reversed the judgment, concluding that the Burnses did not conclusively prove theft of trade secrets and that sufficient evidence supported the defamation and tortious interference findings, but the damages for tortious interference were unsupported. The case was remanded for a new trial due to the intertwined nature of the claims.

Tortious InterferenceDefamationTheft of Trade SecretsLost WagesEconomic DamagesLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictRemandAppellate ReviewRealty Business
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. Burns

The City of the Colony and Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool (TML Risk Pool) appealed the trial court's dismissal of their appeal regarding a workers' compensation benefits award to Brandon Burns. Appellants challenged the timeliness of the City's intervention, TML Risk Pool's standing, and the award of attorney's fees. Brandon Burns cross-appealed on attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the City's petition in intervention was untimely, TML Risk Pool lacked standing as it was not an 'insurance carrier' under the labor code, and the attorney's fees awards were proper. The cross-appeal on attorney's fees was also overruled as Burns failed to show how the trial court's actions resulted in an improper judgment.

Appellate ReviewStandingInterventionTimelinessEquitable TollingAttorney's FeesJurisdictionSelf-InsuranceGovernmental EntityTexas Labor Code
References
25
Case No. 10-98-228-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 1999

Justin Lee Burns v. Chris Sammons

Chris Sammons filed suit against Justin Lee Burns for breach of an oral contract, and Burns subsequently failed to appear for trial, leading to a post-answer default judgment of $16,200, along with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. Burns filed a motion for new trial, arguing he did not receive notice of the trial setting and had a valid defense based on the statute of frauds. The trial court overruled Burns's motion, concluding he had received proper notice. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, determining that Burns failed to present sufficient prima facie evidence of lack of notice at the hearing on his motion for new trial.

default judgmentmotion for new trialdue processnotice requirementoral contract disputestatute of fraudsappellate reviewabuse of discretionCraddock testprima facie evidence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burns v. United States Fire Insurance Co.

United States Fire Insurance Co. (Fire Insurance) initiated a worker's compensation case against Terry L. Burns, seeking to overturn an Industrial Accident Board's award. Burns counterclaimed for benefits, but the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Fire Insurance, a decision upheld by the court of appeals. The central legal question revolved around Burns' employment status as an elected town marshal for Westworth Village at the time of his injury, following an ordinance that purportedly abolished his office. The Supreme Court concluded that, according to Tex.Rev.Civ. StatAnn. art. 999, an elected marshal cannot be removed from office under such provisions during their term. Consequently, the Court held that Burns was an employee of Westworth Village when the accident occurred, reversing the lower courts' judgments and remanding the case for further proceedings.

worker’s compensationelected officialmunicipal lawstatutory interpretationemployment statussummary judgmentoffice abolitionTexas lawappellate reviewremand
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hand v. Stevens Transport, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan

Jean and Howard Hand appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment which dismissed their claims for health care benefits against the Stevens Transport, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan as time-barred. The Hands argued that the Plan's failure to comply with ERISA's notification requirements should invalidate or toll the contractual limitations period. The appellate court found that while the Plan's notice was non-compliant, it still provided reasonable notice of partial denial, and the Hands failed to exercise due diligence. The court concluded that the twenty-seven month contractual limitations period was reasonable and was not tolled by the Plan's ERISA non-compliance or the pursuit of administrative remedies. Therefore, the Hands' claims were barred, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

ERISAHealth Insurance BenefitsContractual Limitations PeriodStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentDenial of BenefitsEquitable TollingAdministrative RemediesNotice RequirementsEmployee Benefit Plan
References
19
Case No. 2:16-cv-3974
Regular Panel Decision

Burns v. Cnty. of Nassau

The Court addressed a motion to dismiss based on the first-filed rule, involving two collective actions, Burns et al v. County of Nassau et al and Arciello et al v. County of Nassau et al, both concerning similar wage and hour claims against the County. While finding the first-filed rule applicable due to substantial overlap in parties and claims, the Court denied dismissal. Instead, to prevent prejudice to plaintiffs regarding the statute of limitations, and to conserve judicial resources, it ordered the consolidation of the Burns action with the Arciello action. All future proceedings for the consolidated case will occur under the Arciello case number.

Collective ActionFirst-Filed RuleConsolidationMotion to DismissOverlapping ClaimsJudicial EconomyStatute of LimitationsEastern District of New YorkFair Labor Standards ActWage and Hour
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Superior Insurance Company v. Burnes

W. E. Burnes sought workmen's compensation for alleged total permanent disability after injuring his back in March 1951 while working for Wyatt Metal and Boiler Works. He jumped from a 'skirt-ring' onto a concrete floor, sustaining injuries to his hip, back, and spine. A jury found him totally and permanently disabled. The appellant challenged this verdict, arguing insufficient evidence, that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of evidence, or that his pre-existing conditions were the sole cause of incapacity. The court reviewed extensive evidence, including Burnes's continued employment post-injury despite severe pain, and various medical testimonies. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of total and permanent disability and rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding remittitur and special issues concerning pre-existing conditions. This decision confirms the validity of the jury's original findings.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityBack InjurySpinal InjuryRuptured Intervertebral DiscSpina BifidaMedical TestimonyAppellate ReviewJury VerdictSufficiency of Evidence
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burns Electric Co. v. Walton Street Associates

This appeal addresses whether a contractor, Burns Electric Co., Inc., can compel a developer, Walton Street Associates, to allow inspection of its books and records under Lien Law § 76. Walton, a vendee in possession of property owned by the Syracuse Industrial Development Agency (SIDA), argued it was an 'owner' and the project a 'public improvement', exempting it from such demands. The court held that while SIDA, as a public agency, is immune, Walton acts as a 'contractor' by engaging subcontractors for the improvement, despite also being an 'owner'. Therefore, Burns is entitled to inspect Walton's financial records to ensure trust funds are used to pay improvement costs. The Special Term's order permitting the relief requested was unanimously affirmed.

Lien LawPublic ImprovementPrivate ImprovementContractor StatusOwner StatusVendee in PossessionTrust FundBooks and Records InspectionMechanics' LienIndustrial Development Agency
References
12
Case No. W2023-00304-SC-T10B-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2023

Ben C. Adams v. Buchanan D. Dunavant v. Watson Burns PLLC

This case involves an accelerated appeal concerning a recusal motion filed against a probate judge in an interpleader action. The law firm defendants, Watson Burns, PLLC and Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, sought the judge's recusal based on his previous expert testimony against Watson Burns in an unrelated 2017 case concerning attorney fees. The probate judge initially denied the recusal motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ordering recusal. However, the Supreme Court, upon an application for permission to appeal by Lillian Dunavant and Mary Douglas Dunavant, reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment, reinstating the probate judge's denial. The Supreme Court held that neither the judge's prior expert opinion nor subsequent adverse rulings provided an objectively reasonable basis for questioning his impartiality.

Judicial RecusalJudicial ImpartialityExpert Witness TestimonyAttorney FeesProbate LawTrust DisputesAppellate ReviewStandard of ReviewJudicial EthicsExtrajudicial Bias
References
18
Case No. M2012-02423-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. City of Burns

Plaintiff Captain Larry D. Williams was discharged by the City of Burns after reporting his police chief, Jerry D. Sumerour, Jr., for pressuring him into illegally fixing a traffic ticket for the chief's stepson. The defendant municipality claimed Williams was terminated for violating the chain of command and undermining the chief's authority. The Tennessee Supreme Court found that disciplining Williams for reporting illegal activity to the mayor was an admission of retaliatory motive and that other reasons for termination were pretextual. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, concluding Williams was discharged solely in retaliation for refusing to participate in and remain silent about illegal activities under the Tennessee Public Protection Act.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionIllegal Ticket FixingChain of Command ViolationPolice Officer TerminationEmployment At-WillPublic Policy ExceptionPretext for RetaliationCausation in Employment LawMunicipal Employment
References
78
Showing 1-10 of 827 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