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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Supak v. Zboril

This case involves an appeal concerning the implied dedication of a strip of rural land for public use as a road and the award of attorneys' fees. Landowners Lydia Supak and the Estate of Eugene Kubena challenged a jury's finding of implied dedication and the trial court's order for them to pay attorneys' fees to Burleson County and the Zborils. The appellate court affirmed the finding of implied dedication and the attorneys' fee award against Supak. However, it vacated the judgment imposing attorneys' fees liability against the Estate of Eugene Kubena and the conveyance of property belonging to the Estate of Eugene Kubena, citing the trial court's lack of jurisdiction over the estate's proper representatives or heirs. The court found that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over Eugene Kubena's estate for these parts of the judgment.

Implied DedicationPublic RoadsEasement by PrescriptionLand Use DisputeAttorneys' Fees AwardJurisdiction IssuesEstate LawAppellate ProcedureFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceLegal Sufficiency of Evidence
References
26
Case No. 03-05-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2006

Patricia Bush v. Fayette County, Texas

This case involves a dispute between landowner Patricia Bush and Fayette County, Texas, concerning the public or private status of a 0.6-mile section of St. James Church Road. Patricia Bush appealed the district court's decision, which granted summary judgment in favor of Fayette County, declaring the road public. The County's argument for public status was based on theories of implied dedication or prescription. The appellate court, in its de novo review, focused on the implied dedication theory. It determined that the County presented sufficient evidence of long-standing public use, creating a presumption of implied dedication that Bush failed to refute. The court also found that the public relied on the road's public nature and would continue to be served by its dedication, and that implied acceptance of the dedication was established through customary public use. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Land Use DisputePublic Road AccessImplied DedicationSummary Judgment RulingAppellate ReviewProperty RightsFayette CountyTexas Court of AppealsRoad MaintenanceEasement by Prescription
References
19
Case No. 04-08-00443-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2009

Daniel M. Van Dam and Cheryl L. Van Dam v. Patrick L. Lewis and Dorisa L. Lewis

This appeal concerns a property dispute over an alleged easement providing water access to Lake Corpus Christi for residents of the Pernitas Point Subdivision. Appellees Patrick L. Lewis and Dorisa L. Lewis claimed an easement by implied dedication across land owned by Appellants Daniel M. Van Dam and Cheryl L. Van Dam. The trial court granted a declaratory judgment in favor of the Lewises, confirming an easement for the benefit of the public and subdivision lot owners. However, the appellate court found that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish donative intent by the original landowners to dedicate the property for public use. The court concluded that mere acquiescence to use by neighbors, without additional factors implying donative intent, was not sufficient to prove an implied dedication. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment that the property is not subject to an easement by implied dedication.

Property LawEasement by Implied DedicationAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentReal Estate DisputeDonative IntentPublic UseLand SubdivisionTexas LawLake Access
References
17
Case No. 04-12-00358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2013

George T. Chaney and Medina County v. Simon Camacho and Felipe Camacho

This appeal addresses whether a specific section of Medina County Road 674 constitutes a private or public thoroughfare. The jury initially ruled it private, a decision challenged by appellants George T. Chaney and Medina County on grounds of insufficient evidence regarding express or implied public dedication, or estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings, concluding that the 1927 plat did not unequivocally establish public dedication and that there was no conclusive evidence of implied dedication by the landowners prior to 1981. Furthermore, the court found no basis for estoppel to prevent the Camachos from claiming the road as private. Finally, the court upheld the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the appellees, Simon and Felipe Camacho.

Property LawRoad DedicationPublic EasementPrivate Road DisputeMedina CountySufficiency of EvidenceImplied DedicationExpress DedicationEstoppel by DeedAttorney's Fees
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Dam v. Lewis

This appeal concerns a property dispute over an alleged easement providing water access to Lake Corpus Christi for residents of Pernitas Point Subdivision. Appellees Patrick L. Lewis and Dorissa Lewis claimed an easement by implied dedication existed across a portion of land owned by Appellants Daniel Van Dam and Cheryl L. Van Dam. The trial court initially granted a declaratory judgment in favor of the Lewises, confirming the easement. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the evidence legally insufficient to establish an easement by implied dedication. Specifically, the court determined there was insufficient proof of donative intent by the original landowners to dedicate the property for public use, noting that mere acquiescence or limited "owner access" was not enough to meet the heavy burden required.

Easement by Implied DedicationProperty RightsDonative IntentPublic AccessLake Corpus ChristiPernitas Point SubdivisionDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceTexas Property Law
References
17
Case No. 2011-192 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Jamaica Dedicated Med. Care, P.C. v. Tri State Consumer Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which denied defendant Tri State Consumer Ins. Co.'s cross motion for summary judgment. Jamaica Dedicated Medical Care, P.C., as assignee, sought first-party no-fault benefits. Tri State Consumer Ins. Co. contended that it had either properly reimbursed services according to the workers' compensation fee schedule or timely denied others due to lack of medical necessity. The Appellate Term found a triable issue of fact regarding medical necessity and that the defendant failed to establish its workers' compensation fee schedule defense as a matter of law. Consequently, the order denying summary judgment was affirmed.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentMedical necessityWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewAssigneeInsurance claimCivil CourtAppellate TermKings County
References
2
Case No. 04-10-00802-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2012

Callaghan Ranch, Ltd (Appellant/Cross Appellee) v. David Killam (Appellee/Cross Appellant)

Callaghan Ranch, Ltd. appealed the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, challenging a jury's finding that a disputed portion of San Ygnacio Road was not impliedly dedicated to the public. The Ranch had sought a declaratory judgment to affirm the road's public status. Concurrently, the Killams, as appellees and cross-appellants, contested the trial court's refusal to award attorney's fees. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, concluding that Callaghan Ranch failed to conclusively prove implied dedication due to disputed evidence. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of attorney's fees, citing that both parties had legitimate interests to pursue.

Implied DedicationDeclaratory JudgmentJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictPublic RoadPrivate RoadAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceProperty RightsTexas Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long Island Owner's Ass'n v. Davidson

The Long Island Owners’ Association (LIOA) appealed a jury’s findings concerning the public dedication of a swing bridge and compensable services provided to appellees John and Rebecca Adams and Mark Davidson. The court examined whether the bridge constituted real property subject to dedication and reviewed the evidence for implied and express dedication. It also addressed LIOA's claims of irreconcilable jury findings regarding compensable services and its request for a permanent injunction against the appellees' use of the bridge. The court reversed the trial court's judgment of public dedication, declaring the bridge a private structure, affirmed the jury's finding of compensable services for the Adamses, and denied LIOA's request for a permanent injunction.

Property LawEasementsPublic DedicationReal PropertyPersonal Property ClassificationSwing BridgeAppellate ReviewJury FindingsCompensable ServicesInjunction
References
81
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2004

Claim of Pache v. Aviation Volunteer Fire Co.

The Workers’ Compensation Board granted benefits to the widow of a fire chief who died of a heart attack, finding an implied contract of coverage under Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law § 30 (2) between Aviation Volunteer Fire Company and the City of New York. The City appealed, contending there was no evidence of FDNY Commissioner approval for such a contract and insufficient proof of its formation. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the City Charter provisions did not exclusively assign contracting authority to the Commissioner and that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of an implied-in-fact contract, partly due to the City's failure to produce a knowledgeable employee. The court declined to consider a new argument regarding General City Law § 16-a.

Implied contractVolunteer Firefighters’ Benefit LawWorkers' Compensation BoardMunicipal liabilityFatal heart attackAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationCity CharterFire DepartmentContract formation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Reade

This case concerns an appeal from multiple orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Alice Schlesinger. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of implied contract. The court found that the malicious prosecution claim lacked probable cause, emphasizing that a prior judgment against the plaintiffs created a presumption of probable cause not overcome by subsequent reversal. The abuse of process claim failed as there was no indication of perverted use of process for a collateral advantage. Furthermore, the tortious interference claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and proposed amendments for implied contract theories were properly denied due to a lack of meeting of the minds and absence of unjust enrichment.

malicious prosecutionabuse of processtortious interference with contractbreach of implied contractNoerr-Pennington doctrineprobable causeamendment of complaintunjust enrichmentaffirmationappellate review
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 438 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