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. 03-12-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2014

Raymond Bloch// SAVR Communications, Inc. And OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. v. SAVR Communications, Inc. OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. VanOwen Group Acquisition Company, Inc. Adam Crossno And John Crossno// Cross-Appellee, Raymond Bloch

This case originated from a dispute over severance pay in an employment agreement. Raymond Bloch sought $95,000 in severance pay from SAVR Communications, Inc. and OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. after his termination. The Texas Workforce Commission initially denied his claim, interpreting a 1998 rule under the Texas Payday Act. The district court reversed the TWC's decision, deeming the 1998 rule invalid, and awarded Bloch the $95,000. However, the district court dismissed Bloch's claim for attorney's fees due to res judicata, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals, which noted the Payday Act does not provide for fee-shifting.

Employment agreementSeverance payTexas Payday ActTexas Workforce CommissionWage claimJudicial reviewStatutory constructionAdministrative rulesRes judicataBreach of contract
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Terex Utilities, Inc. v. Republic Intelligent Transportation Services, Inc.

Terex Utilities, Inc. leased a custom digger derrick truck to Republic Intelligent Transportation Services, Inc. The truck was severely damaged in an accident, leading Terex to sue for breach of contract, asserting Republic failed to pay the full replacement value as per their agreement. Terex sought the cost of a new 2009 truck, while Republic argued for the market value of the 2007 truck or its actual cash value. The trial court denied Terex's motion for summary judgment and granted Republic's. On appeal, the court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the valuation of the truck and the interpretation of "full-replacement value," affirming the denial of Terex's motion, but reversing the grant of Republic's, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Breach of contractSummary judgmentContract interpretationFull replacement valueMarket valueProperty damageRental agreementEquipment leaseAppellate reviewTexas civil procedure
References
11
Case No. 08-11-00342-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2013

Terex Utilities, Inc. v. Republic Intelligent Transportation Services, Inc.

Terex Utilities, Inc. (Appellant) sued Republic Intelligent Transportation Services, Inc. (Appellee) for negligence and breach of contract after a rented hydraulic digger derrick truck was damaged beyond repair. The rental contract required Republic to pay for all losses, including full-replacement value. Republic paid $100,075.13, but Terex claimed the full replacement cost was $138,273.50 for a new 2009 model. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied Terex's motion and granted Republic's. On appeal, the Court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the valuation of the truck and the meaning of "full-replacement value" in the contract. Therefore, the Court affirmed the denial of Terex's summary judgment motion but reversed the grant of Republic's summary judgment motion, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppealContract InterpretationFull Replacement ValueDamages CalculationGenuine Issues of Material FactStandard of ReviewRemandRental Agreement
References
14
Case No. 06-04-00064-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2004

Adrian Maynard Lister v. State

Adrian Maynard Lister was indicted and convicted of aggravated robbery, receiving a sentence of twenty years and a $5,000 fine. On the same day, he and his attorney signed a waiver of his right to appeal. Despite this waiver, Lister filed a pro se notice of appeal, claiming confusion regarding his rights. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's certification of Lister's right to appeal, which reflected the waiver. Finding that the waiver was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made, and without evidence that the trial court granted permission to withdraw the waiver, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Aggravated RobberyCriminal AppealWaiver of AppealRight to AppealPro Se AppealJurisdictionTexas Court of AppealsPost-ConvictionVoluntary WaiverKnowing Waiver
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workforce Commission v. Olivas

Ms. Maria Elena Olivas, a former employee of the Texas Workforce Commission, filed a workers' compensation claim after developing injuries in March 2008. She was subsequently dismissed from employment in May 2009, leading her to file a suit against the Commission for retaliatory discharge. The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and arguing that Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code mandated an unequivocal waiver of immunity, which it claimed was absent in the anti-retaliation provisions of Chapter 451. The trial court denied the Commission's plea. On appeal, the Commission contended that Section 311.034 abrogated existing Texas Supreme Court precedent (*Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez*) that recognized a waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims against state agencies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that the State Applications Act (SAA) still provides a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for retaliation claims against state agencies, and that neither Section 311.034 nor the *Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman* decision altered this established legal analysis.

Sovereign ImmunityRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewGovernment CodeLabor CodeLegislative WaiverState AgenciesStatutory Construction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gudz v. Jemrock Realty Co., LLC

The dissenting opinion, penned by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, argues against the permissibility of a class action concerning rent overcharges under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The core contention is that the treble damages stipulated in RSL § 26-516 (a) constitute a mandatory "penalty" as defined by CPLR 901 (b), which explicitly forbids class actions for statutory penalties unless specific authorization exists. The dissent asserts that any waiver of these treble damages by a class representative is nullified by Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.13, as such a waiver would undermine the legislative intent to deter excessive rents and contravene public policy. Furthermore, the opinion posits that such a waiver compromises the adequacy of the class representative, potentially disadvantaging class members who might possess significant claims for treble damages.

Class ActionPenaltyTreble DamagesRent Stabilization LawCPLR 901 (b)Waiver of RightsAdequacy of Class RepresentativePublic PolicyStatutory InterpretationRent Overcharge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Overman v. Altama Delta Corp.

Chief Justice William M. Barker dissents from the majority opinion, arguing that it misinterprets and misapplies Tennessee workers' compensation statutes. He contends that a court-approved settlement agreement, including a knowing and intelligent waiver of reconsideration rights, should not be considered a prohibited 'contract or other device' under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-114(a). Barker emphasizes that section 50-6-114(a) aims to prevent unapproved 'outside deals' and should not apply to final judgments of the court made under section 50-6-241. Furthermore, he highlights that recent amendments to section 50-6-241(d)(1)(A)-(B), which prohibit waivers of reconsideration rights, explicitly apply only to injuries occurring on or after July 1, 2004. This, according to Barker, implies that such waivers were permissible for injuries occurring before that date, like Ms. Overman's injuries in 2002. He concludes that the majority errs by applying a legislative rejection of prior panel decisions to cases where the legislature did not intend it to apply, thereby invalidating Ms. Overman's waiver.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementsWaiver of Reconsideration RightsStatutory ConstructionRetroactivity of LegislationTennessee Appellate LawEmployer LiabilityJudicial PrecedentPublic Policy DebateWorkers' Compensation Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amnesty International USA v. McConnell

This case involves a facial challenge to the constitutionality of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), as amended by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA). The plaintiffs, a group of attorneys and organizations whose work necessitates international communications, argue that the FAA unconstitutionally authorizes surveillance targeting non-United States persons outside the U.S. to acquire foreign intelligence information. They asserted an actual and well-founded fear of surveillance, leading them to incur significant costs to protect their communications. The defendants, including the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the statute. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing, concluding that their fear of surveillance was abstract and hypothetical, and their alleged costs, flowing from a subjective chill, did not constitute a concrete and particularized injury in fact. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the government's motion, dismissing the complaint.

Facial ChallengeFISAFAAForeign Intelligence Surveillance ActFourth AmendmentFirst AmendmentArticle IIIStandingElectronic SurveillanceNational Security
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Beecham

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses the application of Donna R. Beeeham for a waiver of the Chapter 7 filing fee. Ms. Beeeham, a debtor with a reported monthly income of $804 and expenses of $1075, had filed her petition along with the fee waiver application. A hearing was held on November 16, 1994, to assess her entitlement to an In Forma Pauperis waiver, during which she disclosed a pending Workers' Compensation claim and substantial medical debts. The court, presided over by Judge G. Harvey Boswell, ultimately denied the application, citing Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1006(b)(3). This rule mandates that the filing fee must be fully paid before an attorney receives payment for bankruptcy-related services, and Ms. Beeeham had paid her attorney a $500 fee, thus indicating an ability to pay the filing fee, even if borrowed. Consequently, she was ordered to pay the $160 filing fee within thirty days or file an installment payment application to prevent case dismissal.

Chapter 7 BankruptcyFiling Fee WaiverIn Forma PauperisBankruptcy ProcedureDebtor's Attorney FeesAbility to PayInstallment PaymentsCase Dismissal AvoidanceWestern District of TennesseeJudicial Conference Pilot Program
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Carter

This appeal concerns a declaratory judgment suit initiated by an unnamed workers' compensation insurance company, referred to as the appellant. The appellant challenged a trial court's ruling that denied its subrogation rights against any recovery made by Johnny Carter from Temple-Inland Forest Products Corporation. Johnny Carter, an employee of Biskamp Electric Company, Inc., sustained injuries at a Temple-Inland plant and received workers' compensation benefits, subsequently filing a third-party action against Temple-Inland. The core issue on appeal was whether the waiver of subrogation endorsement in the insurance policy applied to Temple-Inland Forest Products Corporation, despite variations in naming. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding of waiver and affirmed the decision.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation WaiverInsurance Policy InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewFactual SufficiencyContract ConstructionTexas LawEmployer LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 710 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