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

Sosa v. Central Power & Light Co.

The Sosas sued Central Power & Light, Houston Power & Light, and General Electric for the wrongful death of Mr. Sosa, alleging liver disease from toxic chemical exposure in the early 1970s. Mr. Sosa died on June 1, 1991, and the Sosas filed suit on June 1, 1993. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, arguing the Sosas' First Amended Original Petition's allegations showed Mr. Sosa was incapacitated for twenty years, implying knowledge of injury. The Sosas attempted to file a Second Amended Original Petition without leave of court to invoke the discovery rule, but it was struck as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the Second Amended Original Petition was untimely, leave to file was properly denied, the First Amended Original Petition's allegations constituted judicial admissions, and thus, the limitations defense barred the claim as Mr. Sosa was aware of his injuries more than four years prior to his death.

Wrongful DeathStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAmended PleadingDiscovery RuleJudicial AdmissionsToxic ExposureLiver DiseaseAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
24
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05661 [221 AD3d 429]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Keilitz v. Light Tower Fiber N.Y., Inc.

Christopher Keilitz, an electrician working for Hellman Electric Corp., was injured when a vacuum fell into a manhole and struck him during the installation of fiber optic cables. Keilitz sued Light Tower Fiber New York, Inc., Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., and Empire City Subway (ECS) under New York Labor Law. The Supreme Court initially denied Keilitz's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims and dismissed claims against the defendants. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Keilitz partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against ECS and Light Tower. The court determined that Keilitz's work constituted an 'altering' activity under the statute and that the falling vacuum presented an elevation-related risk, rendering other related claims moot.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentFalling ObjectElevation-Related RiskManhole AccidentFiber Optic InstallationAlteration WorkAppellate DivisionThird-Party ClaimContractual Indemnification
References
9
Case No. 03-98-00043-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1999

William Travis Light v. State

William Travis Light, certified by a juvenile court to stand trial as an adult, pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. He was sentenced to terms of imprisonment by a jury. On appeal, Light argued that the juvenile court never obtained jurisdiction to transfer him to adult court because he was not personally served with a summons and a copy of the petition, as required by the Texas Family Code. The appellate court agreed, holding that personal service on a juvenile is mandatory for such proceedings and cannot be waived. The court rejected the State's arguments regarding preservation of error, proper personal service, and harmless error, emphasizing that a lack of jurisdiction renders subsequent proceedings void. Consequently, the judgment was vacated and the cause remanded to the juvenile court.

Juvenile CertificationPersonal ServiceJurisdictional DefectAggravated Sexual Assault of ChildIndecency with ChildTexas Family CodeTexas Code of Criminal ProcedureAppellate ProcedureWaiver of JurisdictionDue Process
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Havens v. Dallas Power & Light Co.

Henry Havens, while working as a welder on the roof of the new Johnson Bros. Chevrolet warehouse, suffered severe electrical shock and personal injuries when a steel rod he was handling contacted a high voltage line owned and maintained by Dallas Power & Light Company. National Automobile Casualty Insurance Company intervened to recoup $14,440.95 in compensation benefits paid to Havens. The trial court granted Dallas Power & Light Company's motion for summary judgment, leading to a take-nothing judgment. Havens appealed, asserting that questions of fact existed regarding the defendant's notice of the dangerous condition, the defendant's negligence, and the plaintiff's contributory negligence. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the defendant was not required to anticipate dangerous consequences from the high voltage lines, which complied with safety codes, and had no notice of the specific sign erection project that created the hazardous situation.

Summary JudgmentElectrical AccidentHigh VoltagePersonal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseForeseeabilityConstructive NoticeSafety Code ComplianceWorkers' Compensation Claim
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeMaria v. RBNB 20 Owner, LLC

This appellate decision modifies and affirms prior orders regarding a construction site accident where the plaintiff was injured by a sprinkler pipe and alleged inadequate lighting. The plaintiff's injuries led to claims of common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) against multiple defendants, including Linden Construction Corp., Forest Electric Corp., owner defendants, and Newmark Construction Services, LLC. The court granted Linden summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, finding it did not directly create the hazard or have notice, but denied it for Labor Law § 241(6) due to its role as a statutory agent through its sub-subcontractor, Tower Interior Corp. Forest's motions for summary judgment on all claims were denied due to unresolved issues of fact regarding inadequate lighting and notice. The owner defendants were granted summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, but Newmark, the construction manager, was denied summary judgment on those claims because of a dispute regarding its notice of the inadequate lighting. Furthermore, summary judgment for contractual indemnification claims was largely denied for all parties, as triable issues of fact remain regarding the respective liabilities of Linden's sub-subcontractor and Forest's role in the inadequate lighting.

Construction site accidentSprinkler pipe hazardInadequate lightingSummary judgmentCommon-law negligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Statutory agent liabilityContractual indemnificationSubcontractor liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Light v. State

Appellant William Travis Light, initially certified to stand trial as an adult for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child, appealed his conviction. He contended that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction for certification because he was not personally served with a summons and petition, as mandated by the Texas Family Code. The appellate court reviewed relevant statutes and case law, affirming that personal service on a juvenile in transfer proceedings is a jurisdictional prerequisite and cannot be waived. The court rejected the State's arguments regarding error preservation, proper service, and harmless error, concluding that the juvenile court never acquired jurisdiction, thus invalidating the district court's subsequent jurisdiction. The judgment was vacated and the cause remanded to the juvenile court.

Juvenile CertificationJurisdictional DefectPersonal ServiceTexas Family CodeCriminal ResponsibilityWaiver of JurisdictionAggravated Sexual AssaultIndecency with a ChildAppellate ProcedureVoid Judgment
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Central Power and Light Co. v. Sharp

Central Power and Light (CP&L) appealed a summary judgment concerning the Comptroller's interpretation of the Franchise Tax Act, specifically regarding the computation of a company's surplus. The core of the dispute involved CP&L's capitalization of Allowance for Funds Used During Construction-equity (AFUDC-equity) for its nuclear power plant, which it argued should not be capitalized for franchise tax purposes, leading to a three-million-dollar refund claim. CP&L contended that the Comptroller's interpretation resulted in unequal taxation, resurrected an unconstitutional 'books and records' rule, and constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding a rational basis for the disparate tax treatment between regulated and non-regulated entities due to regulated utilities' assurance of recovering AFUDC-equity through rate-making. The court also rejected CP&L's 'books and records' and delegation arguments, the latter on jurisdictional grounds.

Franchise Tax ActTax ClassificationRegulated UtilitiesAFUDC-equityCapitalizationAccounting PrinciplesConstitutional LawDelegation of PowerSummary JudgmentTax Refund
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reeves v. Houston Lighting and Power Co.

Ray Reeves appealed a summary judgment granted to Houston Lighting and Power Company and Houston Industries Incorporated. Reeves had sued them for discrimination and wrongful discharge, alleging retaliation for filing workers' compensation claims. The defendants successfully argued that Reeves's claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations. The central legal question involved determining when the two-year statute of limitations began to accrue—either from the unequivocal notice of impending termination on September 10, 1993, or the actual termination on October 18, 1993. The court, relying on precedents regarding notice of discriminatory acts, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the September 10, 1993, letter constituted unequivocal notice, thereby barring Reeves's lawsuit filed on October 17, 1995.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentEmployment LawDiscriminationNotice of TerminationAccrual of Cause of ActionTexas LawAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 9313
Regular Panel Decision

Central Power & Light Co. v. Caballero

Richard A. Caballero, a former lineman for Central Power & Light Company (CPL), sued CPL for employment discrimination based on a "handicap" under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. A jury found in favor of Caballero, awarding him $33,000 for past loss of earnings and $200,000 for future loss of earning capacity, along with attorney's fees. CPL appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in granting damages in an equitable proceeding, submitting the cause to a jury for equitable issues, and awarding unauthorized damages. The appellate court agreed with CPL, holding that the Act provides for equitable relief, not monetary damages for future earning capacity, and that a jury cannot determine equitable issues. The court also noted that Caballero's interim earnings and disability benefits should have been credited against any back pay. The judgment of the trial court was reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the Act.

Employment DiscriminationHandicap DiscriminationDisability RightsCommission on Human Rights ActEquitable ReliefJury Trial RightsDamages LimitationBack PayLoss of Earning CapacityStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texaco, Inc. v. Central Power & Light Co.

Texaco appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas by writ of error after the court of appeals dismissed its appeal, ruling Texaco had participated sufficiently in the trial to be barred from this method of appeal. In the initial trial, Texaco had settled with the plaintiffs, Eduardo and Hilda Jean Espinoza, but was later found liable for indemnity to Central Power and Light Company (CP&L) based on a tariff. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment, clarifying that 'actual trial' participation, specifically involvement in the evidentiary stage or 'decision-making event' that adjudicates rights, is required to preclude a writ of error appeal. Since Texaco did not participate in the jury trial that established CP&L's liability to the Espinozas or the subsequent indemnity judgment against Texaco, the Supreme Court held Texaco was entitled to appeal by writ of error. The case was remanded for consideration of Texaco’s points of error.

Writ of ErrorAppellate ProcedureTexas Rules of Appellate ProcedureActual Trial ParticipationIndemnity ClaimSettlement AgreementJudicial NoticeNonparticipation RuleJury TrialSupreme Court of Texas
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 1,537 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