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

Hernandez v. Texas Department of Insurance

Hernandez, an insurance agent, had her license revoked by the Commissioner of Insurance. Her timely motion for rehearing was overruled by operation of law on January 16, 1995, after the Commissioner failed to act within 45 days. Hernandez filed for judicial review on March 3, 1995, after receiving a late notification. The trial court dismissed her petition as untimely. On appeal, Hernandez argued the agency had a duty to notify her of the motion being overruled by operation of law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding the Administrative Procedure Act does not require such notice, thus rendering Hernandez's petition for judicial review untimely.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewTimelinessMotion for RehearingOperation of LawNotice RequirementAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionStatutory InterpretationInsurance Agent
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. 03-17-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

in Re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation: Texas Clean Air Act Enforcement Cases

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the State's petition for writ of mandamus. The State sought to abate eighteen later-filed cases, initiated by various counties against Volkswagen, concerning enforcement of the Texas Clean Air Act. The court determined that the common-law doctrine of dominant jurisdiction required the abatement of these later-filed suits because the State's enforcement action against Volkswagen was filed first. The court found that venue was proper in both sets of cases and that they were inherently interrelated, involving the same parties, controversy, and environmental law enforcement. The MDL statute was not intended to modify or create an exception to the dominant jurisdiction rule under these unique circumstances, where all actions sought to impose penalties for the same TCAA violations. Therefore, the MDL pretrial court abused its discretion by not granting the State's plea in abatement.

Mandamus ReliefDominant JurisdictionAbatement of SuitsTexas Clean Air ActMultidistrict Litigation (MDL)Environmental LawInterrelated CasesFirst-Filed RuleAppellate Court DecisionVolkswagen Litigation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Boring & Tunneling Co. of America

Boring & Tunneling Company of America (Bortunco), a subcontractor, was not paid by Golf Services Group (contractor) for work performed on public water line projects. Bortunco, seeking payment under a bond secured by United Fire & Casualty Company (surety) as per the McGregor Act, sent a notice of claim. The initial notice lacked a notary's signature and seal on the sworn statement of account, though the statement was properly sworn to by Bortunco's agent. United Fire, after receiving the notice, argued that this defect constituted a failure to comply with the McGregor Act's notice provisions and moved for summary judgment. Bortunco contended it had substantially complied with the Act, or that United Fire had waived its right to assert notice defects, supporting its claim with affidavits confirming the notary's omission was a clerical error. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bortunco, awarding it $142,542.75. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the McGregor Act, being remedial, requires only substantial compliance for notice provisions other than deadlines. The court found Bortunco's notice substantially complied as it provided actual notice, contained all essential information, and the defect was a mere clerical error that did not frustrate the statute's purpose.

McGregor ActPayment BondSubstantial ComplianceNotice ProvisionsSworn StatementClerical ErrorSummary JudgmentSuretySubcontractorPublic Works Project
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2012

In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in a securities fraud lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation (BofA) concerning alleged misstatements and omissions related to its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. The claims were brought under both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The Court, presided over by District Judge P. Kevin Castel, granted the motion to certify all proposed classes, including those for 1934 Act claims, 1933 Act claims, and purchasers of January 2011 call options. The Court found that the plaintiffs satisfied all Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements for class certification, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding the merits of the Section 14(a) claim, the rebuttable presumptions of reliance, and the scope of the class definitions. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP were appointed as class counsel.

Class ActionSecurities FraudRule 23 CertificationPredominance RequirementNumerosity RequirementCommonality RequirementTypicality RequirementAdequacy of RepresentationSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Securities Act of 1933
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 1999

Ruiz v. Johnson

This Memorandum Opinion addresses motions to terminate the court's jurisdiction over an ongoing civil action concerning conditions in Texas prisons, Ruiz v. Estelle, initiated in 1972. The court rules that the termination provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) are unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers and due process clauses, and thus cannot be applied retroactively to the 1992 Final Judgment. Alternatively, the court finds systemic constitutional violations in three key areas: administrative segregation, inmate safety, and excessive force. Conditions in administrative segregation units (Levels II and III) are found to inflict cruel and unusual psychological suffering and inappropriately house mentally ill inmates. Prison officials are deemed deliberately indifferent to widespread inmate-on-inmate violence, sexual assault, and extortion, failing to provide reasonable protection. A pervasive culture of malicious and sadistic excessive force by correctional officers is also found unconstitutional. However, while medical and psychiatric care are deemed inadequate and often negligent, they do not meet the "deliberate indifference" standard required for an Eighth Amendment violation under current law. The court concludes that despite significant policy improvements, the Texas prison system's practices continue to violate constitutional standards in critical areas, ensuring continued judicial oversight.

Prison ConditionsEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentSeparation of PowersDue ProcessPrison Litigation Reform ActInmate SafetyExcessive ForceAdministrative SegregationMental Health Care
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brewer v. Exxon Corp.

Plaintiff Brewer filed a lawsuit against Exxon Corporation alleging breach of contract and violations of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Brewer, an Exxon employee, claimed she was promised a dealership and that her management role was a precondition to an eventual franchise. Exxon later converted the store to a franchise, but Brewer did not acquire it, as it was sold to another individual who was required to purchase two stores. The court analyzed whether the PMPA applied to the relationship between the parties, noting that the Act is intended to cover existing franchise relationships and protect independent dealers who have invested time and money, not preliminary negotiations or mere employees. Finding that Brewer was an employee and did not bear the entrepreneurial risk indicative of a franchisee, the court granted summary judgment to Exxon, dismissing Brewer's claim under the PMPA, while suggesting she might have other common law or statutory remedies.

Petroleum Marketing Practices ActFranchise AgreementEmployee RightsSummary JudgmentContract DisputeTitle VII ClaimMotor Fuel DistributionStatutory InterpretationBusiness RelationshipsEntrepreneurial Risk
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matthews Ex Rel. Matthews v. Armitage

In this Memorandum-Decision and Order, the court addresses motions filed by defendants Daniel Senkowski and William Costello following a jury verdict that awarded nominal damages of one dollar against them. The case originated from an incident on August 21, 1991, at Clinton Correctional Facility, where inmate Frederick Matthews was stabbed by another inmate, Aaron Breaziel, while both were in involuntary protective custody. Matthews's widow continued the action after his death from unrelated causes in 1994. Defendants sought to amend the judgment to remove David B. Armitage, for whom the jury found no liability, and for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). The court granted the motion to amend the judgment, deleting the entry against Armitage. Furthermore, the court granted the motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Matthews's safety, as required for an Eighth Amendment claim. Additionally, the court found the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the incident in 1991, the legal standard for deliberate indifference regarding an inmate's general propensity for violence was not clearly established in the Second Circuit.

Eighth AmendmentPrisoner RightsFailure to ProtectDeliberate IndifferenceQualified ImmunityJudgment as a Matter of LawFed.R.Civ.P. 50(b)Inmate AssaultClinton Correctional FacilityCorrectional Services
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co.

This action was brought by employees of Volunteer Ordnance Works against their employer, operating under a government contract, seeking unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The dispute centered on whether time spent at plant gates and in transit on the employer's premises constituted compensable working time. The court found that while the Fair Labor Standards Act generally applied to government contracts and the plaintiffs were engaged in the production of goods for commerce, the specific time claimed was not part of a statutory workweek, particularly considering the wartime context and the benefit to the national war effort. Furthermore, the court determined that the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 barred the plaintiffs' claims and affirmed the constitutionality of its provisions, including Section 9, which provides a defense for employers acting in good faith reliance on administrative interpretations. Consequently, judgment was awarded to the defendant.

Overtime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActPortal-to-Portal ActWartime ProductionGovernment ContractorsEmployee WagesStatutory WorkweekJurisdictionConstitutional LawDe Minimis Rule
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Durkin v. Shone

The plaintiff, an unnamed entity likely associated with the Department of Labor, filed suit against Allied Agencies seeking a permanent injunction for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The complaint detailed the defendant's failure to adhere to minimum wage and overtime requirements, as well as inadequate record-keeping for its homeworkers. Allied Agencies argued that the homeworkers were independent contractors, that its operations were not interstate commerce, and that its business qualified for the FLSA's retail or service establishment exemption. The court ultimately ruled that the homeworkers were employees engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce, thus covered by the Act. Furthermore, the defendant failed to prove eligibility for the retail or service establishment exemption. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction against Allied Agencies.

Fair Labor Standards ActMinimum WageOvertime CompensationHomeworkersIndependent ContractorsInterstate CommerceProduction of Goods for CommerceRetail or Service Establishment ExemptionWage and Hour DivisionInjunction
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 12,954 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