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. 13-10-00498-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2012

Service Corporation International and Sci Texas Funeral Services, Inc. v. Leticia Leal

This case involved an appeal from a trial court judgment that found Service Corporation International and SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc. liable for fraud concerning burial plots. The appellees, families of Rodolfo Garza and Charles Rogers, alleged fraud and sought damages for mental anguish. The jury found fraud but also found that most appellees had not filed within the four-year statute of limitations, a finding the trial court disregarded. On appeal, the Thirteenth District Court of Texas reversed and rendered judgment in favor of the appellants, concluding that all claims except Leticia Leal's were barred by limitations and that there was legally insufficient evidence for mental anguish damages for most appellees. Consequently, the awards for actual and exemplary damages were also reversed.

Fraudulent ConcealmentDiscovery RuleStatute of LimitationsMental Anguish DamagesExemplary DamagesBurial DisputesCemetery PracticesCorporate LiabilityTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate Procedure
References
25
Case No. 13-22-00389-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2023

In Re Southwestern Public Service Company, Xcel Energy Inc., Xcel Energy Services, Inc. v. the State of Texas

The relators, Southwestern Public Service Company, Xcel Energy Inc., and Xcel Energy Services, Inc., petitioned for a writ of mandamus, challenging a trial court's second issuance of "death penalty sanctions" against them. The sanctions stemmed from alleged discovery abuses in a personal injury lawsuit filed by Eduardo Munoz Jr. and his family (real parties) following an electrical arc incident. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court's second sanction order contained the same fundamental errors as the first, failing to comply with precedent regarding the severity of sanctions, resting on insufficient evidentiary record, and not demonstrating the inadequacy of lesser sanctions. Specifically, the order improperly precluded the application of proportionate responsibility rules, which constitutes an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the Court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to withdraw its sanction order and proceed with further litigation.

MandamusDeath Penalty SanctionsDiscovery AbuseProportionate ResponsibilityTexas Court of AppealsTrial Court ErrorCivil ProcedureWrit of MandamusEvidentiary HearingElectrical Arc Incident
References
63
Case No. 11-10-00212-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2012

Nathan Park, Individually and D/B/A Park Mowing Service v. Claude Payne D/B/A Haskell Tractor Service

Claude Payne d/b/a Haskell Tractor Service filed a breach of contract suit against Nathan Park d/b/a Park Mowing Service. After a bench trial, the court found in favor of Payne, awarding damages and attorney's fees. Park appealed, contending Haskell Tractor violated the contract by failing to provide required documentation and that the evidence was insufficient for the damages award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Park waived the defense of material breach by not requesting additional findings and that the evidence sufficiently supported the award of lost profits and attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractSubcontract AgreementLost ProfitsAttorney's FeesMaterial BreachWaiver of DefenseAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceTexas Court of AppealsContract Law
References
10
Case No. 04-22-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Champion Food Service, Inc. and Champion Food Service 2, Inc. (Cross-Appellee) v. ProAlamo Foods, L.L.C. and ProCoastal, L.L.C. (Cross-Appellant)

Champion Food Service, Inc. and Champion Food Service 2, Inc. (Champion) appealed a final judgment in favor of ProAlamo Foods, L.L.C. and ProCoastal, L.L.C. (Pro Parties) after a jury trial. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order awarding additional post-verdict attorneys' fees to the Pro Parties, finding the re-opening of evidence impermissible. However, the court affirmed the judgment for the Pro Parties on their quantum meruit claim, including attorneys' fees (excluding the reversed post-verdict award). Champion's claims for DTPA violations and breach of implied warranty were denied due to insufficient evidence. The court upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding frozen meat products and text messages.

Quantum MeruitAttorneys' FeesDirected VerdictBreach of ContractImplied WarrantyDTPAAppellate ReviewJury VerdictPost-Verdict FeesFood Distribution
References
48
Case No. E2014-00005-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2015

Michael Morgan v. Superior Catering Services

This case involves an appeal concerning an age discrimination claim. The plaintiff, Michael Morgan, initially sued Superior Catering Services. Later, Connelly Dean Cofer, Lynda Cofer, and Dean's Coffee Service were added as defendants. The key issues revolved around insufficient service of process on the newly added defendants and the admissibility of hearsay testimony. The trial court initially granted a new trial due to the improper admission of hearsay statements, but then reversed itself, reinstating the jury's verdict based on other evidence. The appellate court found that the service of process was indeed insufficient and that the hearsay error was not harmless, influencing the jury's decision. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Age DiscriminationImproper Service of ProcessHearsay EvidenceWaiverApparent AuthorityHarmless ErrorJury VerdictRemandAppellate ReviewProcedural Error
References
36
Case No. 09-0941
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2011

Service Corporation International and Sci Texas Funeral Services, Inc., D/B/A Mont Meta Memorial Park v. Juanita G. Guerra, Julie Ann Ramirez, Gracie Little and Mary Esther Martinez

The case involves Service Corporation International and SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc., which operated Mont Meta Memorial Park, burying Marcos Guerra in a plot previously sold to another party. Despite the family's refusal, the cemetery disinterred and moved Mr. Guerra's body. His widow, Juanita G. Guerra, and daughters sued both corporations for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and trespass. The Supreme Court of Texas found insufficient evidence to support the liability findings against SCI International and the mental anguish damages awarded to the daughters. The Court also ruled that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of other lawsuits. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and rendered in part, and Mrs. Guerra's claim against SCI Texas was remanded for a new trial.

Cemetery DisputeWrongful DisintermentMental Anguish DamagesCorporate VeilVicarious LiabilityEvidentiary ErrorIrrelevant EvidenceOther Acts EvidencePunitive DamagesTexas Supreme Court
References
32
Case No. 03-10-00709-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Green Tree Servicing, LLC, as Authorized Servicing Agent for Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation v. Travis County

Green Tree Servicing, LLC appealed a post-answer default judgment concerning ad valorem taxes on mobile homes. The original suit was filed by Travis County and other entities against Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation, later substituted with Green Tree. Green Tree failed to appear at trial, resulting in a default judgment. Green Tree filed a motion for new trial, asserting its failure to appear was due to an accident or mistake (attorney transition) and that it had a meritorious defense, arguing that as a repossessing lienholder and not an owner, it was not liable for the taxes under Texas Tax Code Ann. § 32.07. The appellate court applied the Craddock test and found that Green Tree satisfied all three elements. The court adopted the interpretation that a repossessing lienholder is not considered an 'owner' under the tax code. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Post-answer default judgmentAd valorem taxesMobile homesLienholder liabilityProperty ownershipMeritorious defenseCraddock testNew trialStatutory interpretationTexas Tax Code
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. 15-25-00012-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2025

State of Texas, Acting by and Through the Texas Facilities Commission, for and on Behalf of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; The Texas Facilities Commission; Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Facilities Commission; The Texas Health and Human Services Commission; And Rolland Niles in His Official Capacity as Deputy Executive Commissioner for the System Support Services Division of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. 8317 Cross Park, LLC

This is an interlocutory appeal from a denial-in-part of Appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction. Appellee filed an action against the State of Texas, TFC, HHSC, Executive Director Mike Novak of TFC, and Deputy Executive Commissioner for System Support Services Division of HHSC Rolland Niles alleging causes of action for breach of lease, ultra vires conduct related to the termination of the lease, and declaratory relief. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in denying their plea because Chapter 114 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code does not waive sovereign immunity for the State of Texas, HHSC, or TFC for breach of lease claims, and the lease is not a contract for goods or services covered by Chapter 114. Furthermore, Appellants contend that the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) does not waive sovereign immunity for Appellee's declaratory judgment claim as it does not challenge the constitutionality or validity of a statute, and Appellee has not alleged a cognizable ultra vires claim against the state officials. Appellants seek reversal of the partial denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and dismissal of Appellee's claims.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of LeaseDeclaratory JudgmentUltra ViresTexas Civil Practices and Remedies CodeTexas Government CodeAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionState AgenciesContract Law
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Superior Snubbing Services, Inc. v. Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc.

Superior Snubbing Services, Inc. appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc. The case originated from an injury sustained by a Superior employee, Daryll Faulk, while working under a Master Service Agreement between Superior and Mitchell Energy Corporation (now Devon Energy Operating, L.P.). Faulk sued Energy and others, leading to a settlement, after which Energy and Mitchell sought indemnity from Superior based on the contract. Superior argued that Energy's claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Texas Labor Code and the contract was unenforceable under the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that under Texas Labor Code section 417.004, third-party beneficiaries like Energy are not permissible indemnitees because the agreement was not directly with the 'third party'.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationContractual LiabilityTexas Labor CodeOilfield Anti-Indemnity ActSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationThird-Party BeneficiaryAppellate ReviewReverse and Remand
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 12,162 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