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
Jun 10, 2002

Wil-Roye Investment Co. v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA

This case involves an appeal by Wil-Roye Investment Co. II and Renewable Investments (Appellants) against Washington Mutual Bank, affirming a take-nothing judgment from a bench trial. Appellants suffered significant financial losses from a factoring business due to fraudulent invoices generated by Key Commercial Investments, Inc. (KCI) and Key Funding Group (KFG), who acted as their agents. Appellants sued Washington Mutual Bank (formerly MAB), alleging common law fraud, conspiracy, and negligence, specifically citing a negligent misrepresentation by MAB's president, John Grist, regarding a factoring client, Riley Drilling Company. The trial court found Grist's representation negligent but not fraudulent, and crucially, determined that Appellants' losses were primarily caused by the internal fraudulent scheme within their factoring business and their agents' negligence, not by the bank. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, addressing issues related to summary judgment denial, scheduling order modifications, adverse inferences from Fifth Amendment assertions, and the lack of a special relationship or justifiable reliance on MAB's statements.

Factoring BusinessNegligent MisrepresentationFraudulent InvoicesAgency RelationshipFifth Amendment PrivilegeSummary Judgment DenialScheduling Order ModificationSpecial Relationship DoctrineJustifiable RelianceCausation (Legal)
References
47
Case No. 08-03-00001-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2004

Wil-Roye Investment Co. II and Renewable Investments, Inc. v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA

Wil-Roye Investment Co. II and Renewable Investments, Inc. (Appellants) appealed a 'take nothing judgment' in favor of Washington Mutual Bank (Appellee). The case involved a factoring business relationship and allegations of negligent misrepresentation and fraud against Washington Mutual Bank, formerly Midland American Bank (MAB). The trial court found MAB negligently misrepresented information about a client, Riley Drilling, but determined that Appellants' losses were caused by a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the Holders and their companies, and the negligence of Appellants' agents, rather than by MAB. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding findings on justifiable reliance and causation. The appellate court also addressed and rejected Appellants' claims regarding the denial of summary judgment, the extension of scheduling deadlines, and adverse inferences drawn from Fifth Amendment assertions.

Factoring BusinessNegligent MisrepresentationFraudulent InvoicesFifth Amendment PrivilegeAdverse InferenceJustifiable RelianceCausationAgency RelationshipScheduling OrderContinuance
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Telenor East Invest AS v. Altimo Holdings & Investments Ltd.

In this securities case, Telenor East Invest AS (Telenor East) sued Altimo Holdings & Investments Limited and other entities (Alfa Group) for alleged insider trading, illegal tender offer, and misleading disclosure statements related to their purchase of shares in VimpelCom. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint or compel arbitration. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration, ruling the claims were outside the arbitration agreement's scope. The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court dismissed the Sections 13(e), 10(b), and 14(e) claims due to insufficient pleading, but allowed the Sections 13(d) and 14(d) claims to proceed.

Securities FraudInsider TradingTender OfferDisclosure ViolationsMotion to DismissArbitration AgreementPSLRARule 9(b)Exchange ActVimpelCom
References
53
Case No. 04-08-00067-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2008

Auburn Investments, Inc. v. LYDA Swinerton Builders, Inc. and NSHE TX Gainsville, LLC

Auburn Investments, Inc. (Appellant) appealed the denial of a temporary injunction against Lyda Swinerton Builders, Inc. and NSHE TX Gainsville, LLC (Appellees). Auburn, owner of the Drury Inn and Suites, sought to halt construction of a Marriott Courtyard Hotel next door due to trespass, loss of business goodwill, and nuisance caused by dust, debris, and noise. While a Rule 11 agreement addressed some noise and debris issues, Auburn pursued the temporary injunction for remaining concerns regarding dust and debris, alleging loss of goodwill and risk of injury to guests and employees. The trial court denied the injunction, finding Auburn failed to provide objective evidence for loss of goodwill and that concerns about imminent injury were based on fear rather than proven harm. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding there was no abuse of discretion.

Temporary InjunctionConstruction DisputeNuisanceTrespassBusiness GoodwillAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionReal Estate LitigationHotel IndustryProperty Damage
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobson Family Investments, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance

Jacobson Family Investments (JFI) and other plaintiffs invested with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS) and purchased fidelity bonds from National Union and other excess insurers. After Madoff's fraud was exposed, JFI submitted a claim for losses including fictitious gains, which National Union denied, asserting coverage was limited to actual losses. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the insurers, limiting coverage to 'actual losses' and dismissing JFI's claim for breach of good faith, but found against aggregating claims and applying a single deductible for all net losers. On appeal, the court affirmed that the term 'loss' in the fidelity bond does not encompass fictitious Madoff gains, stating that one cannot lose money that never existed. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the breach of good faith claim but modified the lower court's decision, holding that the $3 million single loss deductible applies to each individual 'net loser' plaintiff's recovery, rather than being applied only once for all.

Fidelity BondInsurance CoverageMadoff FraudPonzi SchemeActual LossFictitious GainsSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationAmbiguityDeductible Application
References
13
Case No. 01-21-00731-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2025

Shafaii Investments, Ltd., Raj Shafaii, and Party and Reception Center, Inc. v. Melania Estela Rivera Bonilla and Margarita Angelino Trujillo

Two townhouse owners, Melania Estela Rivera Bonilla and Margarita Angelino Trujillo, sued Shafaii Investments, Ltd., Raj Shafaii, and Party and Reception Center, Inc. for damages following flooding. The owners alleged breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and DTPA violations, claiming appellants failed to procure insurance despite charging them for it. Rivera also sued for wrongful foreclosure and TDCA violations. A jury found in favor of Rivera and Angelino, awarding repair costs, mental anguish, treble damages, and attorney's fees. On appeal, appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence for damages and the applicability of the economic loss rule. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for damages and that the economic loss rule did not preclude recovery due to fraud and deceptive acts.

Property DamageFloodingInsurance FraudDeceptive Trade Practices ActTexas Debt Collection ActBreach of ContractNegligent MisrepresentationWrongful ForeclosureMental AnguishAttorney's Fees
References
61
Case No. 03-04-00485-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2008

MHI Partnership, Ltd. v. DH Real Estate Investment Company D/B/A DH Investment Company

MHI Partnership, Ltd. appealed a trial court judgment concerning its breach-of-contract action against DH Real Estate Investment Company. The dispute arose from a real estate development contract where MHI terminated the agreement, alleging a material breach by DH for failing to provide required backup cost information three weeks before closing, despite a "time is of the essence" clause. The trial court denied MHI's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury found no material breach by DH, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The appellate court found that MHI did not conclusively establish a material breach as a matter of law, noting that boilerplate "time is of the essence" clauses do not automatically make every deadline material, and considering factors such as DH's offers to cure and testimony from MHI's own executives regarding the deadlines' importance. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's finding that DH's conduct did not constitute a material breach justifying contract termination.

Contract LawReal EstateBreach of ContractTime is of the EssenceMaterial BreachDirected VerdictJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewContract TerminationProperty Development
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tyson v. ASSOCIATES INVESTMENT COMPANY

Associates Investment Company initiated a lawsuit against Kenneth Ray Tyson to recover an alleged balance on a $2,300 note. Tyson counter-sued, alleging usury, Anti-Trust Statute violations, and insurance overcharges, naming Morris Robinson Motor Company, Emmco Insurance Company, and Associates Investment Company (Indiana) as cross-defendants. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of Associates was initially granted, but after further proceedings, including a jury trial, a new trial was ordered. This appellate decision reversed the summary judgments against Associates Investment Company (Texas) and Emmco Insurance Company (Indiana), remanding the cause for further proceedings due to unresolved issues of usury and anti-trust violations. However, the dismissal of Associates Investment Company (Indiana) for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed.

UsurySummary JudgmentAnti-Trust LawsConsumer FraudChattel MortgageInstallment NoteContract DisputeVehicle RepossessionCross-ActionAppellate Procedure
References
20
Case No. 13-08-00560-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2010

Khalil Pakideh and Alma Investments, Inc., D/B/A Texas Alma Investments, Inc. v. William L. Pope and Adams & Graham, L.L.P.

This appeal concerns a legal malpractice suit brought by Khalil Pakideh and Alma Investments, Inc. (Appellants) against their former attorneys, William L. Pope and Adams & Graham, L.L.P. (Appellees). Appellants alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, claiming that the attorneys' failures, particularly regarding expert witness designation and trial preparation, forced them into an unfavorable settlement in an underlying case. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the attorneys. The Court of Appeals found the no-evidence summary judgment motion procedurally defective for lack of specificity. Additionally, the court ruled that the traditional summary judgment motion failed because the attorneys' supporting affidavit contained conclusory statements and did not conclusively negate elements of the appellants' claims regarding the settlement value. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for unchallenged factual theories, but reversed and remanded the remainder of the case.

Legal MalpracticeSummary JudgmentNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentTraditional Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i)Conclusory StatementsAttorney NegligenceBreach of Fiduciary DutySettlement Value
References
40
Case No. 02-11-00060-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2012

Amos McAlister A/K/A A.L. McAlister, Individually and D/B/A Albam Investments and Barbara McAlister, Individually and D/B/A Albam Investments v. Hatbreeze Properties, L.L.C.

Amos and Barbara McAlister, doing business as Albam Investments, appealed a trial court judgment that awarded Hatbreeze Properties, L.L.C. damages for their breach of a commercial lease agreement. The McAlisters argued that Hatbreeze breached the lease by not maintaining insurance, making the damages provision an unenforceable penalty, and disputed calculations for utilities and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment regarding the breach of contract, fraud, and fraudulent inducement claims. However, the court found Hatbreeze's initial demand for damages excessive and noted the trial court erred by not crediting the McAlisters' security deposit. Consequently, the judgment was modified to remove attorney's fees and reduce the awarded damages by the security deposit, then affirmed as modified.

Breach of Commercial LeaseSummary JudgmentFraud ClaimsFraudulent InducementContract DamagesAttorney's FeesSecurity DepositAppellate ReviewTexas Property LawMitigation of Damages
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 1,996 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