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. 15-25-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2024

Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC, (In Its Own Capacity and as Assignee) v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC and CR Permian Processing, LLC

This is a joint petition for a permissive interlocutory appeal stemming from an order by the Texas Business Court, Eleventh Division. The underlying lawsuit, filed in Harris County in May 2021, involves Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC (and its assignees) against EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC and CR Permian Processing, LLC, concerning natural gas purchase agreements. The parties entered a 'Subsequent Agreement' on September 13, 2024, to bring their dispute to the Texas Business Court, leveraging a statutory provision for jurisdiction by agreement. They filed a Joint Notice of Removal, but the Trial Judge issued an order on December 20, 2024, remanding the case. The judge ruled that House Bill 19's Section 8 limits the Business Court's subject-matter jurisdiction to actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024, which this case predates. However, recognizing substantial grounds for differing opinions and the need for clear precedent for the nascent Business Court, the judge certified a permissive interlocutory appeal on the jurisdictional question and stayed the remand order pending the appeal's resolution.

Jurisdictional DisputeBusiness CourtInterlocutory AppealContract LawEnergy LawNatural GasTexas LawStatutory InterpretationPermissive AppealEffective Date
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2018

Golden Spread Coop., Inc. v. Emerson Process Mgmt.

Plaintiff Golden Spread Cooperative, Inc. (joined by intervenor Westport Insurance Company) sued defendant Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions, Inc. for damages arising from a defective distributed control system (DCS) supplied by Emerson. The DCS, installed in Golden Spread's Unit 3 steam turbine, allegedly contained a logic error that caused the turbine to overheat and suffer extensive friction damage. Emerson moved for summary judgment, arguing that Golden Spread's claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, negligence, and strict product liability were barred by the contract's exclusive repair-or-refund remedy and the economic loss rule. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment for Emerson, concluding that Golden Spread's acceptance of the DCS limited it to warranty claims which Emerson had fulfilled, and that the economic loss rule precluded tort recovery as the damage was to an integrated product, not 'other property.' The Senior Judge adopted these findings and recommendations, granting summary judgment in favor of Emerson.

Economic Loss RuleSummary JudgmentContract LawTort LawBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyStrict Product LiabilityNegligenceComponent PartIntegrated Product
References
95
Case No. 2-05-104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2006

Xuxian Niu v. Revcor Molded Products Company and Rob Knight

Xuxian Niu appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Revcor Molded Products Company and Rob Knight in an employment discrimination lawsuit. Niu, a Chinese American, was terminated in November 2002 from his manufacturing engineering manager position, having been hired in March 2001. He alleged racial discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, racial harassment, and retaliation, citing ridicule of his accent and unfair treatment by his supervisors. Revcor and Knight contended Niu's termination was due to the completion of the lean manufacturing process and a negative business forecast for new products. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Revcor established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Niu's termination and Niu failed to raise a fact issue concerning pretext or retaliation.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTexas Labor Code Chapter 21McDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingPretext for DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentAdverse Employment ActionAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. (Integrated) purchased a commercial general liability policy from Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale). Integrated received delayed and initially incorrect notifications about a worker's injury. After clarifying details, Integrated notified Scottsdale, which denied coverage citing late notice. Integrated then filed a declaratory judgment action to compel Scottsdale to defend and indemnify it. Scottsdale's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the order denying dismissal was affirmed, as Integrated adequately pleaded reasonable delay and Scottsdale's documentary evidence was insufficient to refute the claim.

Commercial General LiabilityInsurance PolicyDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyLate NoticeDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1994

Twyford v. Production Associates, Inc.

Production Associates, Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, which granted McDonald’s Corporation’s motion to dismiss a third-party complaint. The primary action involved Thomas E. Twyford, a McDonald's employee, who sued Production Associates for injuries suffered at a convention. Production Associates then sought contribution from McDonald's. The Supreme Court initially applied Pennsylvania law, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that Illinois law should apply based on an 'interests analysis' approach, as both Production Associates and McDonald's have significant ties to Illinois. Illinois workers' compensation law, unlike Pennsylvania's or New Jersey's, does not preclude third-party contribution claims against an employer.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionWorkers' CompensationChoice of LawConflict of LawsContribution ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois LawPennsylvania Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Niu v. Revcor Molded Products Co.

This case concerns an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by Xuxian Niu against his former employer, Revcor Molded Products Company, and its Vice President, Rob Knight. Niu, a Chinese American, alleged racial discrimination, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and racial harassment after his termination in November 2002. The defendants argued Niu's position was eliminated due to the completion of a manufacturing process and a bleak business forecast. The trial court granted summary judgment for Revcor and Knight on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Revcor provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for Niu's termination, which Niu failed to sufficiently rebut as pretextual for either discrimination or retaliation.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentPretextNondiscriminatory ReasonTexas Labor CodeHostile Work EnvironmentAppellate ReviewTermination
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Paragon Process Service, Inc.

Paragon Process Service, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which held the company responsible for unemployment insurance contributions for its process servers from 1978 to 1980. Paragon contended that these process servers were independent contractors, not employees, over whom it exercised no control beyond legal requirements. The court, referencing precedents like *Matter of 12 Cornelia St. (Ross)*, determined that the Board lacked a rational basis for classifying the process servers as employees. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision. The matter was then remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings consistent with this new finding.

Unemployment insuranceIndependent contractorProcess serversEmployer liabilityEmployee classificationAppellate reviewAdministrative decisionRational basis reviewLabor lawNew York law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Positive Productions

Jonathan Smith, known as Lil Jon, petitioned the District Court to vacate or modify an arbitration award in favor of Positive Productions, a Japanese concert promoter. The dispute arose from Smith's failure to perform three concerts in Japan as per initial and rescheduled agreements, leading to their cancellation. The International Centre for Dispute Resolution arbitrator, Mark Diamond, awarded Positive Productions $379,874.00 for lost profits, expenses, legal fees, and loss of reputation. Smith argued improper notice of arbitration, lack of arbitrator jurisdiction, and manifest disregard of New York law regarding damages. The District Court, presided by Judge Mukasey, denied Smith's petition and granted Positive Productions' cross-petition to confirm the award, finding that Smith received sufficient notice, the arbitrator had jurisdiction, and the damage awards were justified under the law.

Arbitration AwardContract BreachLost ProfitsExpensesReputation DamagesAttorneys' FeesNoticeJurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActNew York Law
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Steuben Foods, Inc. v. GEA Process Engineering, Inc.

Plaintiff Steuben Foods, Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Defendants GEA Process Engineering and GEA Procomac S.p.A., alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,209,591. The case involved motions for summary judgment filed by the Defendants, which were subject to reports and recommendations by a Magistrate Judge. Following Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's second Report and Recommendation, the District Court reviewed the matter de novo. The Court ultimately denied Plaintiff's objections and adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting Defendants' amended motion for summary judgment. The decision hinged on the proper construction of the patent claim term "into," which the Court found to imply the possibility of contact with the contents of a region, a condition not met by the accused product.

Patent InfringementSummary JudgmentClaim ConstructionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMagistrate JudgeReport and RecommendationObjectionsSterile RegionsValve Activation MechanismAseptic Processing
References
12
Case No. 04-98-00477-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1999

Bryan Barnhill v. Integrated Health Services, Inc.

Bryan Barnhill appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Integrated Health Services, Inc. Barnhill suffered a back injury at work and subsequently sued his employer, initially naming Normandy Terrace, Inc. and later Riverside Healthcare, Inc. and Preferred Care, Inc., before finally identifying Integrated Health Services, Inc. as his employer. Integrated moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, which Barnhill countered with a fraudulent concealment defense. The appellate court found that Barnhill presented genuine issues of material fact regarding fraudulent concealment, given that Integrated was aware of the lawsuit and had business connections with other named defendants. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary Judgment AppealWorkers' Compensation DisputeStatute of LimitationsFraudulent Concealment DefenseEmployer IdentificationDiscovery IssuesAppellate ProcedureEquitable EstoppelPleading AmendmentsNon-subscriber Employer
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 4,024 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