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
Jul 03, 2007

Johnson v. RGIS Inventory Specialists

This case involves a lawsuit by Joél Johnson against RGIS Inventory Specialists alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regarding unpaid overtime and minimum wages. Johnson, an auditor, claimed she was not compensated for travel time, 'wait time' (arriving early at meet sites or inventories, and waiting for company transportation), and time spent donning and doffing equipment. RGIS sought summary judgment, arguing these activities were non-compensable preliminary or postliminary activities or de minimis. The court granted summary judgment in part, denying claims related to general travel time, wait time incidental to company transportation, and doffing. However, it denied summary judgment for claims concerning work performed while traveling after March 2004, wait time prior to an inventory, and donning equipment, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAWagesOvertimeMinimum WageTravel TimeWait TimeDonning and DoffingSummary JudgmentEmployment Law
References
90
Case No. 13-17-00641-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

American Bank, N.A. as Trustee of the Lisa Marie Buckley Trust and Co-Trustee of the John Buckley Jr. Trust and Kelly Rose Kinard Trust, John Buckley Jr. Trust, Lisa Marie Buckley Trust, Kelly Rose Kinard Trust, Together With John Buckley Jr., Lisa Marie Buckley, and Kelly Kinard, as Trustee, Co-Trustee and/or Trust Beneficiaries of the John Buckley Jr. Trust, Lisa Marie Buckley Trust and Kelly Rose Kinard Trust, and/or Shareholders v. Moorehead Oil & Gas, Inc., Moorehead Acquisition, LLC, and Moorehead Oil & Gas, LLC

This is an appeal regarding a summary judgment in a proceeding to determine the fair value of ownership interests in corporate stock under the Texas Business Organizations Code. Appellants, consisting of American Bank, N.A. as trustee, and the Buckley family members (John J. Buckley Jr., Lisa Marie Buckley, and Kelly Rose Kinard) as co-trustees and/or beneficiaries of their trusts, challenged the denial of their petition for stock valuation against Moorehead Oil & Gas entities. The key arguments on appeal were whether the Bank was the sole entity capable of requesting a valuation and if the limitations period was tolled due to the misnomer doctrine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Lisa Marie Buckley's claim as a beneficiary due to lack of standing, but reversed the remainder of the judgment, ruling that the first amended petition related back to the timely-filed original petition for limitations purposes and that American Bank, John J. Buckley Jr., and Kelly Rose Kinard had standing as trustees or co-trustees. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentCorporate Stock ValuationDissenting Shareholder RightsTexas Business Organizations CodeTrusts and TrusteesBeneficiary StandingLimitations PeriodMisnomer DoctrineAppellate ProcedureFair Value Appraisal
References
24
Case No. 01-08-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2009

Expo Motorcars, LLC. v. Harris County Appraisal District, Harris County Appraisal Review Board

Expo Motorcars, L.L.C. challenged the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) and Harris County Appraisal Review Board. Expo contested the constitutionality and application of Texas Tax Code sections 23.121(b) and 41.44(a)(1) regarding the valuation of its motor vehicle inventory for tax years 2004 and 2005. Expo argued it was denied meaningful due process review, presented uncontradicted evidence of actual value, and claimed the statutory formula violated the Texas Constitution. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Expo's protest was untimely for 2004, the valuation method correctly used previous year's sales, and the tax code sections were constitutional as applied to Expo.

property taxmotor vehicle inventoryappraisaldue processTexas Tax Codeconstitutional challengesummary judgmenttax valuationstatutory interpretationappeal
References
4
Case No. 3:14-bk-30921-SHB
Regular Panel Decision

Lansden v. Jones (In re Jones)

This adversary proceeding concerns a Complaint to Determine Nondischargeability of Debt filed by Carl Lansden, Robert Cash, and Carl Hugh Lansden against Charles M. Jones, III, under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Plaintiffs sought a judgment based on an Inventory in Satisfaction of Debt Agreement (ISDA) from 2010, which they alleged was procured by Defendant through false pretenses and misrepresentations regarding the unencumbered status and importability of firearm inventory (ARMACO and FTZ Inventories). The Court found that Defendant benefited from the ISDA and made false representations with fraudulent intent concerning the ARMACO Inventory, rendering that portion of the debt nondischargeable. However, the Court determined that Plaintiffs' reliance on Defendant's representations regarding the FTZ Inventory was not justifiable due to constructive notice of existing liens, thus that portion of the debt was discharged. Ultimately, Plaintiffs were awarded a nondischargeable judgment totaling $800,626.97, plus attorneys' fees, but their claim for punitive damages was denied.

Bankruptcy LawDebt NondischargeabilityFraudulent MisrepresentationFalse PretensesInventory Transfer AgreementFirearms ImportationSecured CreditorBreach of ContractAgency RelationshipCompensatory Damages
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

EXLP Leasing, LLC v. Galveston Cent. Appraisal Dist.

The case concerns a dispute between EXLP Leasing, LLC (EXLP) and the Galveston County appraisal district regarding the constitutional validity of a statutory formula for taxing leased natural-gas compressors and the proper taxable situs for this equipment. Galveston County challenged the Texas Tax Code provisions, arguing they undervalued the compressors at a "minute fraction" of their market value, violating constitutional requirements for "equal and uniform" taxation. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the county failed to rebut the strong presumption of constitutionality, clarifying that the legislature is not constitutionally mandated to base property valuation solely on market value. Furthermore, the Court determined that Washington County, where EXLP maintains its inventory and business operations, is the correct taxable situs, establishing a comprehensive statutory scheme that supersedes general situs rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered a decision against Galveston County on both issues.

Property TaxTexas Tax CodeConstitutional LawValuation MethodTaxable SitusHeavy EquipmentNatural Gas CompressorsLegislative DiscretionEqual and Uniform TaxationMarket Value
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1995

Morales v. Morales

In a divorce action, the husband appealed portions of a judgment concerning child support, private parochial school tuition, division of a savings/security plan, pension plan, and the valuation of the wife’s practical nurse license. The appellate court modified the judgment regarding the private school tuition, directing the husband to pay 68% instead of the full amount. Crucially, the court also modified the valuation of the wife’s nursing license, rejecting the wife's expert's flawed methodology and adopting the husband's expert's valuation of $98,000 in enhanced earning capacity, crediting the husband with a $9,800 share. The court found the wife's expert's valuation speculative and not founded in economic reality. The judgment, as modified, was affirmed.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertyEnhanced Earning CapacityProfessional License ValuationChild SupportPrivate School TuitionAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonyValuation MethodologyDivorce Law
References
7
Case No. M2012-02242-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2013

Tonya Andrews, As Admin. for the Estate of James Christopher Sprinkle & Jacob Colton Sprinkle a minor by next friend and Guardian Tonya Andrews v. Amy Sprinkle and Frank Wray

This appeal concerns the valuation of a decedent's plumbing business, Rooter Drain and Plumbing, at the time of his death. The decedent's mother, as administratrix of the estate, sued the decedent's wife and her brother for wrongfully converting business assets and goodwill. The trial court found the defendants liable and awarded $75,000 in damages, comprising $25,000 for tangible assets and $50,000 for goodwill. On appeal, the defendants challenged the valuation and argued that goodwill should not be considered a separate property interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the valuation was supported by evidence and that goodwill is a transferable property interest in this context.

Estate AdministrationBusiness ValuationConversion of AssetsGoodwill ValuationAppellate ReviewDamages AwardProperty RightsIntestate SuccessionCredibility AssessmentBench Trial
References
27
Case No. 174 S.W.3d 184
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2005

HCA, Inc. v. American Protection Insurance Co.

HCA, Inc., a healthcare facility operator, appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of its insurers, American Protection Insurance Company and others. The dispute stemmed from HCA's claim for linen stock losses, valued between eight and twelve million dollars, which HCA attributed to mismanagement and malfeasance by FDR Services Corporation, its linen management contractor. The insurers denied coverage based on an "inventory exclusion" clause in their "all-risk" policies, arguing the loss was only disclosed upon taking inventory. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, ruling that HCA had presented sufficient independent evidence of loss, beyond mere inventory computations, to warrant a trial on the merits, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Insurance LawAll-risk PoliciesInventory Exclusion ClauseSummary JudgmentContract BreachAppellate ReviewFortuitous LossBurden of ProofEvidence SufficiencyMismanagement
References
80
Case No. 2007-0000383M-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2013

Wise Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. American Hat Company

American Hat Company (AHC) sued Wise Electric Cooperative, Inc., for negligence after a catastrophic grass fire, caused by a disconnected overhead service wire, severely damaged AHC's extensive hat inventory. The trial court found Wise Electric negligent, awarding AHC over $13 million for inventory replacement and $5.1 million for lost profits, but also granted Wise Electric an offset. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment on negligence and damages, upholding the replacement value for the unique hat inventory and the calculation of lost profits over five years. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the offset claim due to insufficient evidence regarding the specific amount of the offset.

NegligenceProperty DamageLost ProfitsElectrical ArcingWildfireUtility PoleBurndy Insulink ConnectorInventory ValuationReplacement ValueExpert Testimony
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Katz v. Feinberg

This case involves a dispute between former business partners, Norman Katz (petitioner) and Herbert Feinberg (respondent), arising from the sale of Katz's interest in their company, I. Appel Corporation, to Feinberg. An arbitration panel initially denied most claims but found that the purchase price valuation was improperly calculated. Katz petitioned the District Court to confirm the arbitration award in its entirety, while Feinberg cross-moved to partially vacate and modify the award, arguing the arbitrators exceeded their authority by re-fashioning the valuation determined by independent accountants (Mahoney, Cohen). The Court granted Feinberg's motion, vacating the portion of the award that adjusted the purchase price valuation, concluding that the original agreement made the accountants' determination final and immune from arbitral review. The remaining aspects of the arbitration award, including the direction for interest payments on the adjusted principal, were confirmed.

Arbitration AwardVacatur of AwardContract InterpretationPurchase AgreementBusiness Partnership DisputeAccountant ValuationFinality ClauseArbitrabilityFederal Arbitration ActNew York Law
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 108 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