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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Needle Trades Workers' Industrial Union

The indictment charges the defendants, including the Needle Trades Workers’ Industrial Union, with violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by conspiring to restrain interstate trade in raw skins. The conspiracy involved preventing non-union dressers from processing skins and dealers from shipping to them, employing violent tactics such as threats, assaults, destruction of property, and the use of explosives. The court addressed whether these actions constituted a restraint of interstate commerce, differentiating between local strikes with indirect effects and direct interference with interstate trade. It concluded that the alleged prevention of New York dealers from shipping skins to New Jersey dressers constituted a direct, substantial, and intentional interference with interstate commerce. The court also affirmed that shipping goods for processing across state lines is considered interstate commerce and clarified that the National Industrial Recovery Act did not repeal the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or legalize such a conspiracy. Consequently, the demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the indictment was overruled.

Sherman Anti-Trust ActInterstate CommerceLabor UnionConspiracyDemurrerIndictmentTrade RestraintViolenceSecondary BoycottLabor Disputes
References
9
Case No. 06-03-00046-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2004

David Durbin, Brenda Davis, Individually, and Brenda Davis, as Next Friend of Brenda Durbin v. City of Winnsboro

The Durbins sued the City of Winnsboro after Jimmy Durbin died in a motorcycle accident during a police pursuit by Officer Tony Browning. The Durbins alleged wrongful death, respondeat superior, and negligent entrustment, claiming Browning purposefully 'bumped' Jimmy's motorcycle. Winnsboro filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for summary judgment, asserting the claims were barred by the intentional tort exception of the Texas Tort Claims Act. The appellate court clarified that an intentional tort under the Act requires intent to cause injury, not just intent to act. It held that the Durbins' negligence claims for Browning's actions were not barred. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims for negligent entrustment and exemplary damages, which are barred by the Texas Tort Claims Act. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityIntentional Tort ExceptionRespondeat SuperiorNegligent EntrustmentExemplary DamagesPolice PursuitMotor Vehicle AccidentWrongful Death
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Opn. No.

This legal opinion addresses whether cost-of-living adjustments paid by the New York City Transit Authority (TA) to its employees, represented by the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), are subject to suspension under the wage freeze provisions of the Financial Emergency Act for the City of New York. The Act, enacted in 1975 to address the city's fiscal crisis, includes the TA as a 'covered organization' whose salary and wage increases are suspended. The opinion concludes that cost-of-living adjustments constitute 'salary or wages' based on common interpretation and legal precedents. Therefore, the opinion holds that such payments by the TA would violate the Act's wage freeze mandate, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent the city's financial collapse.

Wage freezeCost-of-living adjustmentsFinancial Emergency ActNew York City fiscal crisisPublic employeesCollective bargainingStatutory interpretationEmergency powersGovernmental entitiesEconomic stabilization
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Pennzoil-Quaker State Co.

Thomas Richard Brown appealed the trial court's summary judgment granted in favor of Pennzoil-Quaker State Company on his claims of an "intentional act" and spoliation of evidence. Brown sustained severe burns in an explosion at Pennzoil's refinery in Shreveport, Louisiana, and subsequently sued Pennzoil, alleging intentional torts and destruction of evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment on Brown's "intentional act" claim, concluding that Brown did not produce more than a scintilla of evidence to meet the "substantial certainty" requirement under Louisiana's intentional act exception to worker's compensation. However, the court reversed the summary judgment regarding the spoliation of evidence claim, as Pennzoil had not moved for summary judgment on this specific claim, and remanded that portion of the case for further proceedings.

intentional actspoliation of evidencesummary judgmentworker's compensationLouisiana lawTexas appellate procedurerefinery explosionindustrial accidentemployer liabilitysubstantial certainty
References
19
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

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. Pecan Deluxe Candy Co.

Chief Justice Enoch concurs with the majority's result but dissents from their reasoning that Workers' Compensation Act claims and intentional tort claims are mutually exclusive, arguing against the applicability of the election of remedies doctrine. He asserts that intentional injuries are distinct from accidental injuries, citing established legal precedents and the historical interpretation of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act since 1913. Enoch further highlights that employees would not receive double recoveries due to the insurer's statutory subrogation rights, thus negating the need for an election of remedies. He concludes that Ramirez should be allowed to pursue his intentional tort claim without the election of remedies doctrine acting as a defense.

Workers' Compensation ActIntentional TortElection of Remedies DoctrineExclusive Remedy ProvisionAccidental InjuriesSubrogation RightsEmployer LiabilityCommon Law ActionTexas Workers' CompensationJudicial Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirby v. Dubinsky

The case addresses a motion to dismiss a complaint filed against David Dubinsky, president of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, and employee Thomas Bradley, for alleged trespass and destruction of property. Plaintiffs sought treble damages under Real Property Law § 534. The core legal question revolved around the liability of an unincorporated association for the intentional acts of its agents, specifically in the context of General Associations Law § 13. Citing precedents like Martin v. Curran and Torres v. Lacey, the court differentiated between intentional and unintentional wrongs. It concluded that an unincorporated association could only be held liable for an agent's intentional act, such as trespass, if all its members authorized or ratified the act. As the complaint lacked such allegations, the motion to dismiss against David Dubinsky was granted.

TrespassMotion to DismissUnincorporated AssociationAgency LawIntentional TortUnion LiabilityReal Property LawGeneral Associations LawAuthorizationRatification
References
7
Case No. 03-07-00725-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2009

City of San Antonio Acting by and Through City Public Service Board N/K/A CPS Energy v. Bastrop Central Appraisal District and Chief Appraiser Mark Boehnke

The City of San Antonio, through CPS Energy, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Bastrop Central Appraisal District (BCAD) and its chief appraiser to act on an untimely application for an open-space agricultural appraisal for 1999-2002. CPS Energy's land, previously tax-exempt for public use, lost this status retroactively after BCAD discovered a lignite mining lease with Alcoa. Although BCAD processed a similar application for 2003, it took no action on the earlier untimely applications. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of mandamus, holding that BCAD had no statutory duty to act on applications filed after appraisal records approval and that CPS Energy's due-process rights were not violated, as they had opportunities to file timely applications. The court also rejected CPS Energy's estoppel argument against BCAD.

Property Tax LawAppellate ProcedureMandamus ActionStatutory InterpretationDue Process RightsTax Exemption RevocationOpen-Space Agricultural AppraisalUntimely ApplicationGovernmental EstoppelTexas Tax Code
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 8,653 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