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. 03A01-9701-GS-00030
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1997

Hall v. Hall

The case involves an appeal by Peggy Elaine Jackson Hall (mother) against Mark Richard Hall (father) regarding a child support order. Initially, child support was set at $600/month in 1991, increased to $700/month two years later, and then to $1200/month in October 1996, effective June 1, 1996. The mother appealed, contending the $1200 increase was insufficient under Tennessee's child support guidelines. The appellate court reviewed the calculation of the father's net income, specifically addressing the non-inclusion of depreciation as a deductible expense, which the trial judge had overlooked. The court found that depreciation should not be deducted and increased the child support award to $1300/month, making the excess retroactive to January 1, 1995.

Child SupportFamily LawMarital DissolutionIncome CalculationDepreciationCapital GainsChild Support GuidelinesAppellate ReviewRetroactive SupportJudicial Discretion
References
5
Case No. W2007-02611-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Haynes

This medical malpractice case concerns the effectiveness of service of process on an individual physician and a medical corporation in Tennessee. The plaintiffs, Billy R. Hall and Billie Gail Hall, sued Dr. Douglas B. Haynes, Jr. and MedSouth Healthcare, P.C. for alleged negligence. The core issue on appeal was whether various employees who accepted process, either in person or by certified mail, were authorized agents. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment, holding that the employees were not authorized agents, and clarified that the authority to sign for certified mail does not automatically confer authority to accept service of process. Consequently, the one-year statute of limitations had run, leading to summary judgment for the defendants.

Medical MalpracticeService of ProcessAgency LawCivil ProcedureSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsAuthorized AgentCertified MailCorporate LiabilityImplied Authority
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1998

High View Fund, L.P. v. Hall

Plaintiffs, The High View Fund, L.P. and The High View Fund, filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims against E. William Hall and Karen W. Hall for violations of federal securities laws, fraudulent inducement, Delaware Blue Sky laws, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of contract. The claims stem from the plaintiffs' $1 million investment in United Golf Properties, Inc. and the defendants' alleged misuse of the company's assets and misrepresentations in an Offering Memorandum. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court, presided over by District Judge Scheindlin, granted dismissal for the federal securities law claims and common law fraud claims, allowing leave to amend. Additionally, the conversion and breach of contract claims were dismissed with prejudice. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for the Delaware Blue Sky law claims, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment claims.

Securities FraudMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConversionBreach of ContractDelaware Blue Sky LawInvestment Fraud
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Timmons

Kenny Timmons sued his employer, SiBon Beverage Corporation, and its chairman, Robert Hall, for personal injuries sustained after falling from a ceiling while fixing a leaky pipe. Timmons alleged negligence and sought to hold Hall liable under alter ego and single business enterprise theories, as SiBon did not subscribe to Texas Workers' Compensation. The jury initially found in favor of Timmons, but Hall and SiBon appealed the judgment. The appellate court identified reversible errors in the trial court's jury instructions concerning both alter ego and sole proximate cause. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityAlter Ego DoctrineSingle Business EnterpriseCorporate Veil PiercingNegligenceProximate CauseJury InstructionsAppellate Reversal
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Sonic Drive-In of Angleton, Inc.

Majorie Marie Hall, an employee of Sonic Drive-In, sued Sonic and its manager, Michael Cantrell, for premises liability, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hall was injured when she cut her hand on a freezer cover left on the floor. Later, Cantrell allegedly assaulted her by grabbing her wrist to make her hold a french-fry scooper. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sonic and Cantrell on all claims. Hall appealed, arguing that material fact issues existed for her premises liability claim, the assault claim was improperly dismissed based on a faulty interpretation of intent, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was not even addressed in the summary judgment motion. The appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment, finding that Hall raised genuine issues of material fact for premises liability, that an 'intent to injure' is not the only element for assault, and that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was not properly addressed by the summary judgment motion.

Premises LiabilityAssaultIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment AppealEmployer LiabilityEmployee InjuryWorkplace SafetyForeseeabilityCause-in-FactActual Knowledge
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 2000

Hall v. Diamond Shamrock Refining Co., LP

This appeal arises from a survivor's cause of action for punitive damages following a refinery explosion at Diamond Shamrock's McKee Plant in Moore County, Texas, on April 1, 1996, which resulted in the death of employee Charles Otis Hall. The explosion was attributed to defective system design, inadequate procedures, untrained personnel, and covered drain valves. Donna Hall, Charles's widow, filed suit for punitive damages, and a jury awarded $42.5 million. The trial court capped the damages at $200,000, prompting Hall's appeal and Diamond Shamrock's cross-appeal. The appellate court found sufficient evidence of gross negligence against Diamond Shamrock. It also affirmed the applicability and constitutionality of the punitive damages cap and rejected Hall's waiver argument. However, the court found that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of compensatory damages, which were relevant for calculating the punitive damages cap under the statutory formula. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Punitive DamagesGross NegligenceWorkers' CompensationStatutory Damages CapAppellate ReviewExtreme RiskConscious IndifferenceRefinery ExplosionWrongful DeathEvidentiary Error
References
27
Case No. 07-08-0451-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2009

Bryan S. Hall v. Xcel Energy, Inc., Southwestern Public Service Company D/B/A Xcel Energy And Dwayne Marchbanks

Bryan S. Hall filed a motion for rehearing, contending the court erred by concluding he failed to address each ground for summary judgment, specifically the Workers’ Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision against Xcel Energy, Inc. Hall argued a footnote in his appellate brief covered this, conceding he likely received workers' compensation benefits from SPS and that the exclusivity bar would not apply to Xcel. The court found this footnote insufficient, noting Hall implicitly acknowledged the argument by agreeing with the appellee's contention and therefore had a duty to explain why it couldn't form the basis of the trial court's decision. The court also highlighted that Hall's prior efforts to prove he was an Xcel employee contradicted his appellate concession. Consequently, the court denied Hall's motion for rehearing, reaffirming that acknowledging an opponent's point on appeal does not automatically invalidate the trial court's judgment.

Workers' Compensation Actsummary judgmentexclusive remedymotion for rehearingappellate procedureemployer-employee disputeTexas lawcivil appealconcessionlegal burden
References
2
Case No. 15-25-00041-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2024

Appraisal Review Board of the Harris County Appraisal District v. Texas Workforce Commission and Redona Hall

The trial court correctly affirmed the TWC’s decision. Substantial evidence supports the TWC decision that Hall was eligible to receive unemployment benefits because her hours were reduced by her employer. Hall was not terminated for misconduct, nor did she voluntarily quit from her position as a board member, and was eligible for unemployment benefits even though her term as an ARB board member had not yet expired. The TWC’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Hall was not working her customary full-time hours, so TUCA’s exception under Section 201.091 of the Labor Code does not apply. The Board’s per diem pay structure does not prevent members from receiving unemployment benefits, and there is no conflict between the Labor and Tax codes on this issue. Additionally, Appellant is not excluded from chargebacks to its account as Hall’s partial separation from employment was not required by the relevant statute.

Unemployment BenefitsReduced HoursAppraisal Review BoardPer Diem PayChargeback ProtectionStatutory InterpretationLabor CodeTax CodeSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate Law
References
32
Case No. 07-08-0451-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2009

Bryan S. Hall v. Xcel Energy, Inc., Southwestern Public Service Company D/B/A Xcel Energy And Dwayne Marchbanks

Bryan S. Hall filed a motion for rehearing, contending the court erred in concluding he failed to address all grounds for summary judgment. The unaddressed ground concerned the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive remedy against Xcel Energy, Inc. Hall argued a footnote in his brief covered the matter. The court found the footnote insufficient, noting Hall implicitly conceded the argument was asserted in the summary judgment motion and had a duty to explain why it couldn't be the basis for the trial court's decision. Despite Hall's prior efforts to prove he was an Xcel employee, his appellate concession did not make the trial court's decision wrong. Consequently, the court denied the motion for rehearing and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Workers' Compensation ActSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyAppellate ProcedureMotion for RehearingLegal BriefsConcessionBurden of ProofTexas Court of AppealsEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

Diamond Shamrock Refining Co., LP v. Hall

Charles Hall died from burns sustained in a refinery explosion at Diamond Shamrock Refining Co., L.P. His wife, Donna Hall, sued Diamond Shamrock and its parent company, Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corp., for gross negligence to recover exemplary damages under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The trial court initially found gross negligence but applied a statutory cap on damages, leading to appeals from both parties. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, prompting further review by the Supreme Court of Texas. The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence to support the jury's finding of gross negligence, specifically regarding the defendants' actual, subjective awareness of the risk and conscious indifference to Hall's welfare, thereby reversing the appellate court's judgment and rendering judgment for Diamond Shamrock.

Workers' CompensationGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesRefinery ExplosionIndustrial AccidentWorkplace SafetyEvidentiary ReviewSubjective AwarenessConscious IndifferenceTexas Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 865 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