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. 13-01-410-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2003

Rose Tristan, Individually and D/B/A Rose Cleaning Services and Olga Cristan v. C.A. Walker, Inc. and Any Unknown Individuals

Rose Tristan, individually and d/b/a Rose Cleaning Services, and Olga Cristan sued C.A. Walker, Inc. for various claims including breach of contract, fraud, and defamation. A jury found in favor of Tristan on her breach-of-contract and fraud claims but against Tristan and Cristan on their defamation claims. The trial court's judgment reflected these findings, awarding damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the awards for breach of contract and fraud, reversed the award for attorney fees due to lack of agreement in the record, and affirmed the take-nothing judgment on the defamation claims.

Breach of ContractFraudDefamation ClaimsAttorney Fees AwardAppellate ReviewDamages CalculationElection of RemediesLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyJury Verdict
References
25
Case No. 02-16-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2016

Howard Michael Lauderback, Individually, and D/ B/A New Era Contract Services v. FMWB Inc.

Appellant Howard Michael Lauderback appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of appellee FMWB, Inc. Lauderback, a contractor for mowing services with the Texas Department of Transportation, entered into a subcontract with FMWB. A dispute arose when Lauderback withheld payment from FMWB, alleging that FMWB's certificate of workers' compensation insurance was inadequate, despite a special provision in the original TDOT contract requiring such insurance. FMWB subsequently filed a lawsuit asserting claims for breach of contract and a suit on a sworn account. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that FMWB was not statutorily obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance under Texas Labor Code Ann. § 505.013, and Lauderback failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding FMWB's performance or his entitlement to an offset.

Breach of ContractSummary Judgment AppealSubcontract AgreementWorkers' Compensation PolicyTexas Labor CodeContractual PerformanceAffirmative DefenseOffset ClaimAppellate ReviewCivil Procedure
References
26
Case No. 08-10-00222-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

David Nelson, Individually and D/B/A Collective Contracting, a Sole Proprietorship Collective Contracting, Inc. E. E. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Vernco Construction, Inc.

Vernco Construction, Inc. (Appellee) sued David Nelson and E.E. Hood & Sons, Inc. (Appellants) for multiple claims including breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and various fraud claims. The Appellants challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that Vernco had assigned its interest in the claims to Jefferson State Bank via a forbearance agreement. The appellate court examined the forbearance agreement, concluding that it unambiguously transferred ownership of the litigation and its proceeds to the bank. This transfer deprived Vernco of any retained interest or standing in the lawsuit. Consequently, the appellate court determined that both the trial court and the appellate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, leading to the vacating of the trial court's judgment and the dismissal of the case.

StandingSubject Matter JurisdictionAssignment of ClaimsForbearance AgreementBreach of ContractAppellate JurisdictionTexas Business and Commerce CodeJudicial ReviewCase DismissalVacated Judgment
References
20
Case No. NO. 03A01-9711-CV-00525
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1998

Jeff Hubrig v. Lockheed-Martin Energy Systems, Inc., Linc Hall, Individually Larry Pierce, Individually, and Jim Kolling, Individually

Plaintiff Jeff Hubrig, a self-described whistleblower, sought damages after his employment termination, alleging it was due to his refusal to participate in or remain silent about illegal corporate activities. The defendants, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. and several individuals, denied these claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding Hubrig was terminated for time card abuse and sexual harassment. Hubrig appealed, raising issues regarding the pretextual nature of his termination reasons, the viability of a common law retaliatory discharge claim, and outrageous conduct. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Hubrig's misconduct was the sole cause for his termination and that he failed to demonstrate his protected activities were the exclusive reason for his dismissal. The court also clarified that individual supervisors could not be held liable under T.C.A. § 50-1-304.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionSummary JudgmentEmployment LawSexual HarassmentTime Card FraudAt-Will EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySupervisor LiabilityWorkplace Misconduct
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. v. RFD 55th Street LLC

Plaintiff A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. sought to foreclose upon 76 mechanic’s liens filed against condominium units and asserted claims for breach of contract and quasi-contractual remedies. The defendants, including RFD 55th Street LLC and individual unit owners, moved to discharge the liens and dismiss the causes of action. The court granted the motion to dismiss all four causes of action. The mechanic's liens were found invalid under Lien Law § 13 (5) as the deeds of conveyance to third-party purchasers contained the required trust fund provision and were recorded before the liens were filed. The breach of contract claim against non-parties was dismissed due to lack of privity and insufficient allegations for piercing the corporate veil. The quasi-contractual claims were also dismissed as a valid written contract existed covering the disputed subject matter.

Mechanic's LiensLien LawMotion to DismissBreach of ContractQuasi-ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentCorporate Veil PiercingPrivity of ContractConstruction Law
References
17
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05756 [209 AD3d 495]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2022

Lopez v. 157-161 E. 28th St., LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning the dismissal of second third-party claims for breach of contract, unpaid overtime wages, and breach of constructive trust related to a construction project. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that New Wave Contracting Corp., a subcontractor, was the direct employer of the individual second third-party plaintiffs, not the general contractors Iceberg Developing Co., LLC and Forkosh Construction Co., Inc. The court also found that signed lien waivers and releases by the individual second third-party plaintiffs validly barred their wage and contract claims, as payment was accepted without objection. Furthermore, constructive trust claims were correctly dismissed due to the lack of contractual privity between the individual second third-party plaintiffs and the general contractors.

Construction ProjectSubcontractor LiabilityWage ClaimsLien LawSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipContractual PrivityRelease WaiverAppellate ReviewThird-Party Claims
References
8
Case No. 13-22-00115-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Charles DeRouen, Individually and DeRouen Express Services LLC D/B/A JC Express Services v. Eddie Pridgen, Individually and Eddie Pridgen Welding LLC

The appellants, Charles DeRouen (individually) and DeRouen Express Services LLC, appealed a no-answer default judgment in favor of Eddie Pridgen (individually) and Eddie Pridgen Welding LLC. The appellate court vacated the trial court's amended default judgment from April 27, 2022, ruling that the trial court's plenary power had expired. The court reversed and remanded the original January 12, 2022 judgment concerning DeRouen individually due to ineffective substitute service. Furthermore, the claims brought by Pridgen Welding LLC were dismissed for lack of standing. However, the court affirmed the January 12, 2022 judgment against DeRouen Express Services LLC in favor of Pridgen, finding that the entity failed to establish a meritorious defense in its motion for new trial.

Default JudgmentSubstitute ServiceDue ProcessCorporate VeilStandingAppellate ProcedurePlenary PowerMotion for New TrialBreach of ContractContractual Dispute
References
47
Case No. NO. 14-17-00084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2018

Elizabeth Protas v. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, David Callender, M.D. Individually and in His Official Capacity, and Danny Jacobs, M.D., Individually and in His Official Capacity

Dr. Elizabeth Protas, a tenured professor at The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB), filed suit against UTMB and two individual doctors after being ordered to attend a course, suspended without pay, and deemed ineligible for an incentive plan. The trial court dismissed claims against the individual doctors and granted a plea to the jurisdiction for all claims, citing sovereign immunity. Protas appealed, raising issues regarding discovery denial, election of remedies under the Texas Tort Claims Act, due process violations, discrimination claims under the TCHRA, and a claim for declaratory judgment. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of individual claims and the plea to the jurisdiction for due process and declaratory judgment claims but reversed and remanded the discrimination claims, allowing Protas an opportunity to amend her pleadings.

Employment DiscriminationSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionDue ProcessDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Tort Claims ActUltra Vires ClaimTexas Commission on Human Rights ActAppellate ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
42
Case No. 04-17-00160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Robert B. James, DDS, Inc. Robert B. James, DDS, Individually Jean James, Individually And Alexis Mei Pyles, Individually v. Cassandra J. Elkins, DDS

Dr. Elkins sued her former employer and related individuals for defamation, business disparagement, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and conspiracy, alleging false statements about her financial misconduct. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), arguing their communications were protected free speech. The trial court denied these motions. This concurring and dissenting opinion argues that the TCPA applies to Dr. Elkins's claims and that she failed to present sufficient evidence for the elements of actual malice and outrageous conduct for her claims. Therefore, the dissenting judge would reverse the trial court's order in its entirety, dismiss Dr. Elkins's claims, and remand for a determination of attorneys' fees and costs. The opinion also finds that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over Dr. Elkins's motions for discovery and continuance.

Texas LawDefamationBusiness DisparagementIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCivil ConspiracyTCPAAnti-SLAPPQualified PrivilegeActual MaliceEmployment Dispute
References
46
Case No. 02-13-00029-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2013

Brenda Lund, in Her Individual Capacity, and Kristin Alrick, in Her Individual Capacity v. Eric and Ruth Giauque, Individually and as Next Friend of H.G., N.G., M.G., C.G., and B.G., Minor Children

Brenda Lund and Kristin Alrick, appellants, appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss claims brought by Eric and Ruth Giauque, appellees. The Giauques sued Lund and Alrick for negligence related to the placement of children for adoption, arguing that Section 101.106(f) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code violated the open-courts provision of the Texas Constitution. The appellate court, referencing prior supreme court cases, determined that the legislature's enactment of Section 101.106(f) was a reasonable exercise of its police power, serving the societal goal of limiting claims against individual governmental employees. Consequently, the court found no open-courts violation, reversed the trial court's order, and dismissed the Giauques' claims against Lund and Alrick.

Governmental ImmunityOpen Courts ProvisionTexas ConstitutionCivil Practice and Remedies Code Section 101.106(f)Motion to DismissNegligenceGross NegligenceAdoption CaseworkerAdoption SupervisorScope of Employment
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 5,458 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