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. 14-08-00795-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2010

Transcontinental Insurance Company, as Subrogee of the Estate of Reabon Jackson, Jr., Reabon Drusila Jackson (A Minor), Nettie Adams and Donald Robinson v. Briggs Equipment Trust and Genie Industries, Inc.

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed three summary judgments in a case involving wrongful-death and subrogation claims. Appellants Transcontinental Insurance Company and SelenEr Love sued Briggs Equipment Trust and Genie Industries, Inc. after a fatal industrial accident. The court affirmed the summary judgment against Love's claims due to procedural default. However, it reversed and remanded Transcontinental's claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding negligence, product defect, and causation by the defendants, as well as Briggs's liability as a nonmanufacturing seller. The court also clarified that the Texas Family Code's Uniform Parentage Act does not strictly govern paternity determinations in wrongful-death actions, relying on a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard for filial relationships. An unopposed motion to unseal paternity test results was granted.

Product LiabilityWrongful DeathWorkers' CompensationSubrogationSummary JudgmentNegligenceDesign DefectCausationPaternityGenetic Testing
References
24
Case No. 01-09-00399-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2010

Toyota Industrial Equipment Mfg., Inc. v. Carruth-Doggett, Inc. D/B/A ToyotaLift of Houston

This case involves an appeal by Toyota Industrial Equipment Mfg., Inc. (TIEM) against a summary judgment granting indemnity to Carruth-Doggett, Inc., d/b/a ToyotaLift of Houston (ToyotaLift). The underlying dispute originated from a products liability suit where a worker, Shahzah Sunesara, was injured by a forklift manufactured by TIEM and leased by ToyotaLift. Sunesara's claims included strict products liability and negligence against TIEM, and negligence against ToyotaLift. Although Sunesara later removed direct products liability claims against ToyotaLift, the court found that TIEM still had a duty to indemnify ToyotaLift for its defense costs, including attorney's fees, under Chapter 82 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The decision was based on the interpretation that a manufacturer's duty to indemnify is triggered when its product is alleged to be defective in a plaintiff's petition, encompassing other properly joined theories of liability, provided the seller is not found independently liable. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Products LiabilityIndemnity ClaimSummary JudgmentTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 82Forklift AccidentNegligence ActionManufacturer LiabilitySeller IndemnificationAppellate Court DecisionAttorney's Fees
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emhart Industries, Inc. v. Duracell International Inc.

This breach of contract case involves the sale of the Mallory Components Group by Duracell International Inc. to Emhart Industries, Inc. Several transferred facilities were contaminated with toxic substances (PCBs and TCE), leading to two consolidated lawsuits: Emhart v. Duracell and Dart, and Duracell v. Emhart. The trial was bifurcated into liability and damages phases. The Court ruled that Duracell and Dart are liable to Emhart for clean-up costs of the facilities and equipment, consequential damages arising from the necessary clean-up time, costs incurred in enforcing the contract, and a portion of third-party action costs. Additionally, Duracell was found liable to Emhart for CERCLA response costs. The Court also determined that Emhart's temporary plant shutdown was a reasonable response to perceived legal and health risks, but its subsequent decision to permanently close the plant and abandon equipment, while economically rational for Emhart, was outside the scope of Duracell's indemnity obligation.

Breach of ContractEnvironmental LawToxic SubstancesPCBsTCECorporate SaleIndemnity AgreementCERCLATSCAClean-up Costs
References
41
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. 03-98-00109-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1998

Bob Lewallen, Individually and D/B/A Southwest Rubber Industries v. Barry Jarma, Individually and D/B/A Jarma Industries

This case involves an appeal from a district court's order granting a temporary injunction. Appellant Bob Lewallen sought to remove manufacturing equipment from the premises of appellee Barry Jarma, who had performed repairs on it and used it to produce goods. Jarma filed suit, asserting a lien on the equipment or a claim of co-ownership, and obtained a temporary injunction preventing Lewallen from removing the equipment. Lewallen appealed, arguing that Jarma failed to establish a probable right to recovery (due to untimely lien filing and lack of partnership evidence) and that Jarma had an adequate remedy at law. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that Jarma demonstrated a probable right to recover on his lien claim and that the evidence supported a finding of imminent, irreparable injury without an adequate remedy at law, thus justifying the injunction to preserve the status quo.

Temporary InjunctionLien ForeclosureAppellate ReviewProbable Right to RecoveryIrreparable InjuryAbuse of DiscretionStatus QuoTexas Property CodeContract DisputeEquipment Ownership
References
24
Case No. 03-94-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Charlie Franks and Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Sematech, Inc., F/D/B/A Semi Conductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative And Burle Industries, Inc.

This case from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses an injured employee's third-party liability claim and an insurance carrier's derivative subrogation rights under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Charlie Franks was injured, and the workers' compensation carrier, Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company, paid benefits and subsequently filed a subrogation lawsuit. Franks intervened with his own negligence claim, but his intervention was dismissed due to the two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment against Industrial Indemnity, ruling its derivative subrogation claim moot as Franks's underlying rights could not be established. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, emphasizing that Industrial Indemnity's initial suit did not assert Franks's full third-party liability cause of action for his joint benefit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilitySummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsDerivative Claim
References
17
Case No. W2014-00032-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2014

Ricardo Torres v. Precision Industries, P.I., d/b/a Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick and Vicki Hedrick

Ricardo Torres, an undocumented worker, appealed the Hardeman County Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment in his retaliatory discharge claim against Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick, and Vicki Hedrick. Torres alleged he was terminated after filing a workers' compensation claim for a back injury sustained on the job. The trial court had ruled that an unauthorized alien lacked standing to bring such a claim as they were incapable of legal employment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that undocumented employees do have standing to pursue retaliatory discharge claims in Tennessee, as the Workers' Compensation Act broadly defines 'employee' to include those lawfully or unlawfully employed. The court reasoned that retaliatory discharge actions protect employees' rights to file workers' compensation claims and preventing such claims by unauthorized aliens would create an incentive for employers to hire illegal workers and deny them benefits without consequence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeUndocumented WorkerImmigration StatusSummary Judgment ReversalEmployee StandingEmployment LawTennessee Appellate CourtPublic Policy ExceptionEmployer Retaliation
References
52
Case No. 01-03-01003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2005

Julio Mora v. Hemco Industries, Inc.

Julio Mora, an employee of Hemco Industries, Inc., appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Hemco during a bench trial. Mora filed a negligence action after sustaining a herniated disc injury while lifting equipment at work. The appellate issues included whether Mora presented sufficient evidence of medical causation, whether Hemco judicially admitted causation, and if the trial court erred in denying Mora's motion to re-open for additional evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Mora failed to establish medical causation with expert testimony and did not show due diligence in presenting additional evidence.

NegligenceMedical CausationDirected VerdictBench TrialJudicial AdmissionsMotion to ReopenHerniated DiscEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewDue Diligence
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Toyota Industrial Equipment Mfg., Inc. v. Carruth-Doggett, Inc.

Toyota Industrial Equipment Mfg., Inc. (TIEM) appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Carruth-Doggett, Inc., d/b/a ToyotaLift of Houston (ToyotaLift). The case stems from a products liability action initiated by an injured worker against the manufacturer (TIEM) and the lessor (ToyotaLift) of a defective forklift. ToyotaLift sought indemnification from TIEM for legal expenses incurred defending a negligence claim, arguing it was part of the broader products liability action under Chapter 82 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. TIEM contended it had no duty to indemnify since no products liability claims were directly alleged against ToyotaLift. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the negligence claim, when properly joined to a products liability action, triggered TIEM's indemnification duty, especially as ToyotaLift was not found independently liable.

Products LiabilityIndemnificationSummary JudgmentNegligenceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeForklift InjuryManufacturer LiabilitySeller IndemnityAttorney's FeesScope of Products Liability Action
References
7
Case No. 03-03-00643-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2004

Alpine Industries, Inc. v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Greg Abbott, Attorney General for the State of Texas

Alpine Industries, Inc. appealed a district court's summary judgment that held it responsible for collecting Texas sales taxes as a direct sales organization. The Comptroller of Public Accounts determined Alpine, which utilizes independent salespersons to sell air-purification equipment, fell under a provision of the Texas Tax Code requiring it to collect and remit sales tax. Alpine contested this, arguing the Comptroller failed to prove it was a direct sales organization, did not make an individualized determination for administrative efficiency, and that the tax violated the Commerce, Due Process, and Equal Protection clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, ruling that the Comptroller properly applied the tax code and that the tax did not infringe upon Alpine's constitutional rights. Furthermore, the court upheld the Comptroller's counterclaim for over $2 million in back taxes.

Tax lawSales tax liabilityDirect sales organizationAdministrative efficiencyCommerce ClauseDue ProcessEqual ProtectionConstitutional lawSummary judgmentAppellate review
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 5,055 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