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. 03-13-00790-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2015

T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

This case involves a tortious interference with inheritance lawsuit. Richard T. Archer and family (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) sued T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson (Appellants/Cross-Appellees), co-executors of Ted M. Anderson's estate. The Archers alleged that Ted Anderson tortiously interfered with their inheritance from John R. 'Jack' Archer by causing Jack, after a debilitating stroke that left him mentally incapacitated, to sign new estate planning documents that disinherited the Archers in favor of charities. The Archers incurred significant attorney's fees and settlement costs in prior litigation to reinstate Jack's original estate plan, which favored them. A jury found Ted Anderson liable for tortious interference and awarded damages, which the district court modified to include an additional settlement amount with charities. The appellees are now seeking to affirm the liability finding and modify the damage award on cross-appeal.

Tortious Interference with InheritanceEstate Planning DisputeMental IncapacityUndue InfluenceFiduciary Duty BreachGuardianship ProceedingWill ContestAttorney's Fees as DamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
78
Case No. 08-07-00156-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2009

Patrick Wm. Anderson v. Cynthia Diane Anderson

Patrick Wm. Anderson appealed a default divorce judgment granted to Cynthia Diane Anderson after he failed to appear at the final hearing due to his attorney's illness. His motion for new trial, which was denied by operation of law without a hearing, alleged an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Anderson argued that his absence was not intentional, he possessed a meritorious defense regarding separate property, and granting a new trial would not cause injury or delay. The appellate court, applying the Craddock elements, found that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion without a hearing, as Anderson's affidavits supported his claims. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding his arguments dispositive.

Divorce LawDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock ElementsMeritorious DefenseSeparate PropertyCommunity PropertyAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
12
Case No. 12-15-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2015

Earl Anderson, Carrie Bell Scott, Sharon Anderson, Evance Anderson, Bill Burton, Willie Mae Anderson, and Jerry J. Anderson (Smith) v. Robert Louis Durham

The appellants, Earl Anderson et al., are filing a reply brief in the Twelfth Court of Appeals, Tyler, Texas, against appellees Robert Louis Durham and Frank L. Zellers, III. They are appealing a trial court's summary judgment that dismissed their claims. Appellants argue that the trial court erred by allowing an improper challenge to their petition via a no-evidence motion for summary judgment instead of special exceptions, thereby denying them due process and the opportunity to cure defects and conduct discovery. They assert that fact questions exist regarding an altered warranty deed, and that Durham failed to verify his challenge to alleged defects in parties, thus waiving these defects. Appellants pray for the court to reverse and vacate the trial court's summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPleading RequirementsDue Process ViolationEvidentiary IssuesReal Property DisputesDeed AlterationsTrial Court ErrorCivil ProcedureDiscovery Limitations
References
5
Case No. W2006-01967-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2008

Carl Anderson, Ed Howell Anderson, and Gary Anderson v. U.S.A. Truck, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation and Lonzie E. Neal

This case involves a vehicular accident where Carl, Ed Howell, and Gary Anderson were rear-ended by a truck driven by Lonzie E. Neal, an employee of U.S.A. Truck, Inc. The plaintiffs sought damages for personal injuries, including back and neck pain. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on punitive damages, and the jury awarded varying damages to the plaintiffs, reducing them by 30% due to comparative fault attributed to the driver, Mr. Anderson, which was imputed to all plaintiffs due to a joint venture finding. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the punitive damages ruling, finding the joint venture error harmless, and supporting the jury's damage awards and fault allocation.

Vehicular AccidentPersonal InjuryNegligenceComparative FaultPunitive DamagesJoint Venture DoctrineJury VerdictDirected VerdictMedical TreatmentChronic Pain
References
25
Case No. 01-99-01345-CV; Trial Court Cause No. 95CV0220
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2002

Coastal Tankship, U.S.A., Inc. v. Florence Anderson, Administratrix of the Estate of Morris Anderson

This en banc opinion addresses a personal injury suit under the Jones Act and general maritime law, where Florence Anderson sued Coastal Tankships, U.S.A., Inc. for her deceased husband Morris Anderson's bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia (BOOP), allegedly caused by naphtha exposure. The primary issue on appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Anderson's medical expert, Dr. David Miller, to testify on medical causation. The court found that Dr. Miller's differential diagnosis could only reliably establish specific causation, not general causation (i.e., whether naphtha can generally cause BOOP). As the record lacked reliable general-causation evidence, the appellate court concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of Coastal Tankships, U.S.A., Inc.

Jones ActMaritime LawNegligenceUnseaworthinessMedical CausationExpert TestimonyDifferential DiagnosisDaubert StandardToxic TortBronchiolitis Obliterans Organizing Pneumonia (BOOP)
References
51
Case No. M2004-00078-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2005

Melinda Diane Anderson (Byrd) v. Donald Matthew Anderson, Sr.

This case details an enduring post-divorce dispute between Melinda Diane Anderson (Byrd) and Donald Matthew Anderson, Sr., involving child support, alimony, and property division. The trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant was challenged on appeal. The Court of Appeals found procedural deficiencies in the summary judgment motion and identified unresolved factual issues, particularly concerning BellSouth retirement benefits and child support derived from variable income. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the trial court's judgment and remanded the case, instructing the defendant to file a proper responsive pleading and emphasizing the need for a structured resolution of the long-standing issues.

Post-Divorce LitigationChild Support ArrearageAlimony ArrearageProperty DivisionSummary Judgment StandardsAppellate ReviewRemand for Further ProceedingsVariable IncomeRetirement BenefitsProcedural Due Process
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 1978

Memmer v. Anderson

Stephen Harold Anderson and Martha Jane Anderson filed a suit to terminate the parent-child relationship between Dennis Memmer and their daughter, S.A.M., seeking adoption by Stephen and a change of the child's last name to Anderson. The termination was sought on grounds of Dennis's failure to support the child for a year. The trial court granted the relief, prompting an appeal from Dennis Memmer. He argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the findings of non-support and that termination was in the child's best interest. The appellate court, presided over by Justice HALL, reviewed the evidence and affirmed the judgment, concluding that the findings were legally and factually sufficient.

Termination of Parental RightsAdoptionChild SupportParental AbandonmentFamily LawBest Interest of ChildAppellate ReviewTexas
References
1
Case No. 01-17-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2019

Michael Fallon, M.D. v. the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson as Officer for the Public Information for the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Michael Fallon, M.D. sued the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) after they denied his request for certain information, claiming it was held by an affiliated private entity, the MD Anderson Physicians Network. The trial court dismissed Fallon's suit. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Fallon's mandamus claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Cancer Center had a right of access to the Physicians Network's records, thereby making the information "public information" under the PIA. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Fallon's declaratory judgment claim, stating that the Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive sovereign immunity for such claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Public Information ActSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentMandamusGovernmental BodyNon-profit OrganizationPhysicians NetworkMedical Peer ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea to Jurisdiction
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Anderson

Appellee Anderson sued appellant Smith for overtime wages, alleging entitlement under the federal N.R.A. Act and Reemployment Agreement. The trial court found in favor of Anderson, awarding him $3,257.84. Smith appealed, challenging the constitutionality of the N.R.A. Act and asserting Anderson's failure to meet the statutory requirements for overtime pay. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the N.R.A. Act had been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court (Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States). Additionally, the court found that Anderson did not allege or prove he belonged to an exempted class under the Re-employment Agreement that would qualify him for overtime compensation, thus his claim lacked legal basis.

Constitutional LawN.R.A. ActOvertime PayEmployment LawWage DisputeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewReversed JudgmentFederal LegislationLabor Standards
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Joseph Anderson, Jr., an African-American former employee of Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (ABI), sued ABI alleging discriminatory discharge based on race in violation of Title VII. Anderson was terminated in November 1985 for falsifying call and expense reports and for contacting clients during a suspension, violating company policy. After exhausting administrative remedies with the NYSDHR and EEOC, Anderson filed this complaint. ABI moved for summary judgment, asserting the EEOC lacked authority to issue a right-to-sue letter, the claim was barred by laches, and Anderson failed to establish a discrimination claim. The court ruled that the EEOC had authority and rejected the laches defense. However, the court granted ABI's motion for summary judgment, finding that while Anderson established a prima facie case of discrimination, he failed to demonstrate that ABI's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Race DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationLaches DefenseEEOC AuthorityAdministrative ExhaustionFalsification of DocumentsPretextPrima Facie Case
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 492 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