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. 13-99-292-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2000

De La Garza, Martin v. James C. Thomas, Inc., D/B/A James Thomas Exxon

Appellant, an employee of appellee James C. Thomas, Inc., suffered a knee injury while attempting to air a customer's tire when a part of the air hose blew off. After treatment and surgery, appellant was fired for failing to report to work. Appellee, a nonsubscriber to the Texas Workers Compensation Fund, was sued for common law negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellee, finding no evidence of negligence or duty owed. Appellant argued the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should apply, even though it was not formally pleaded initially. The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, holding that res ipsa loquitur could apply to the case and that summary judgment was not proper under all the facts.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentRes Ipsa LoquiturCommon LawAppellate ReviewWorkers Compensation NonsubscriberEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityTexas LawPersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. CA 15-00709
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2015

ANDERSON, ROBERT JAMES v. KERNAN, JAMES M.

Plaintiff Robert James Anderson initiated an action against James M. Kernan and Marlene Kernan, seeking damages for an alleged breach of a joint venture agreement. The purpose of this alleged venture was to develop a market for workers' compensation insurance coverage through professional employer organizations (PEO). The Supreme Court, Oneida County, granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, concluding that both Marlene Kernan and James M. Kernan made prima facie showings that they did not agree to enter into a joint venture with the plaintiff. The court further found that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, noting that an 'agreement to agree' on a general principle is unenforceable due to indefiniteness in contract law.

Joint Venture AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract LawIndefinitenessAgreement to AgreeWorkers' Compensation InsuranceProfessional Employer OrganizationsCivil Procedure
References
6
Case No. No. 08-07-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2008

Darrell W. Garza/Phelps Dodge Refining Corp. v. Phelps Dodge Refining Corp./Darrell W. Garza

Darrell W. Garza, an employee of Phelps Dodge Refining Corp., was terminated for violating a safety rule, prompting him to pursue an employment arbitration. The arbitrator found no good cause for termination, mandating a 30-day unpaid leave and reinstatement, but did not mention back pay. Garza subsequently moved to confirm the award in trial court, seeking back wages, while Phelps Dodge cross-appealed against any back pay award. The trial court initially awarded Garza back pay with an offset for interim earnings, which both parties challenged on appeal. The appellate court reversed the trial court's back pay award, concluding that the trial court lacked authority to add terms not explicitly stated in the arbitrator's original, ambiguous award, thereby rendering judgment to confirm the arbitration award as originally written.

ArbitrationEmployment DisputeBack PayOffsetFederal Arbitration ActTexas General Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewJudicial AuthorityArbitrator's AwardReinstatement
References
17
Case No. 03-07-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2009

Richard Joseph v. Tory James, Angela James, Tony Cussimanio and Robert Bullara

Richard Joseph appealed a summary judgment ruling in a case against Tory and Angela James, Tony Cussimanio, and Robert Bullara, involving claims of breach of contract and real estate fraud related to the sale of his home. The trial court had granted the appellees' motion for summary judgment, concluding that no enforceable contract existed due to a failure to satisfy the statute of frauds, as the modifications to the real estate offer form were not properly signed or authorized by the Jameses. Joseph argued on appeal that an enforceable contract did exist and that his fraud claim was valid. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that without a written agreement signed by the Jameses, the contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds, and consequently, the real estate fraud claim also failed.

Real EstateContract DisputeStatute of FraudsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAgency LawReal Estate FraudTexas LawOffer and AcceptanceCounter-offer
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re James R.

This case addresses a neglect petition filed against a respondent father and mother concerning their child, James R. The respondent mother was found to have neglected James by refusing him shelter, food, clothing, and necessary counseling. A central issue was whether the noncustodial respondent father had an obligation to provide for his child when the custodial mother failed to act in the child's best interest, especially given his knowledge of the child's extreme vulnerability and distress, including suicidal ideation. The court unequivocally affirmed this obligation, ruling that the father's reliance on a prior custody agreement was insufficient. Consequently, the court also found the respondent father neglected James for failing to provide adequate shelter, food, and clothing, though able to do so.

Child NeglectParental ObligationNoncustodial Parent ResponsibilityFamily Court ActBest Interests of the ChildParental Rights and ResponsibilitiesAbandonmentChild WelfareDue ProcessState Intervention
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Garza

The Texas Supreme Court reviewed an appeal involving Maximino Garza, a seaman injured while working for Weeks Marine. Garza sued for Jones Act negligence and a claim that Weeks Marine unreasonably failed to pay maintenance and cure, leading to prolonged suffering. While a jury awarded damages for both, the Supreme Court reversed the award for the unreasonable failure to pay, finding no evidence that this specific breach caused distinct, additional injuries to Garza. Conversely, the Court affirmed that Garza's negligence award should not be reduced by his comparative fault, as he was following specific orders at the time of the accident. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Maritime LawJones ActMaintenance and CureEmployer NegligenceSeaman's InjuryComparative FaultSpecific Orders ExceptionUnreasonable Failure to PayCompensatory DamagesAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. 09-06-126 CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2007

James Jones, A/K/A Squire James Jones, Jr. AKA Derrick Joseph Jones A/K/A Derrick Joseph v. State

James Jones was convicted of the murder of Graffit Jones Winford and sentenced to fifty years of confinement. On appeal, Jones argued the trial court erred by restricting his counsel's cross-examination of a State's witness during the punishment phase and by permitting the Court's bailiff to testify. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in limiting cross-examination, stating the proferred questions were either cumulative or irrelevant to punishment. Additionally, the court concluded that Jones suffered no prejudice or harm from the bailiff's brief testimony, given his minimal contact with the jury and the overall evidence. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Criminal LawAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulingsConfrontation ClauseWitness ImpeachmentJudicial DiscretionBailiff RoleJury ImpactSchizoaffective DisorderMitigating Evidence
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rey Garza v. Roxana Regalado Harrison and Joseph Santellana, Individually and as Respresentative of the Estate of Jonathen Anthony Santellana

This case concerns the application of the election-of-remedies provision in section 101.106(f) of the Texas Tort Claims Act. Off-duty law enforcement officer Rey Garza fatally shot Jonathen Santellana during an attempted arrest for marijuana possession outside his primary jurisdiction. Santellana's parents, Roxana Regalado Harrison and Joseph Santellana, sued Garza for wrongful death. Garza sought dismissal, arguing he was acting within the general scope of his employment as a peace officer, making the suit an official-capacity action against the governmental unit. The trial court and court of appeals denied dismissal, with the latter distinguishing between an officer's authority and duty to act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a licensed peace officer acting under statutory authority to make a warrantless arrest for a crime in plain view is within the general scope of employment for purposes of the Act, regardless of off-duty status or extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Court rendered judgment dismissing the suit against Garza.

Texas Tort Claims ActScope of EmploymentOfficial CapacityGovernmental ImmunityPeace Officer AuthorityOff-duty PoliceExtraterritorial ArrestWarrantless ArrestWrongful DeathPolice Discretion
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garza v. Arizona Refining Co.

The plaintiffs, Garza, filed a diversity suit against ARCo, seeking contribution or indemnity for expenses incurred in a prior state court tort claim where Garza was a defendant. The underlying state case involved the death of a minor in a tar pit on Garza's property, allegedly caused by tar dumped by ARCo. ARCo moved for summary judgment, asserting lack of liability and that any direct claim against it by the original plaintiff would be time-barred. The federal court rejected ARCo's specific grounds but ultimately dismissed Garza's complaint, concluding that the claim for contribution or indemnity was premature as Garza had not yet incurred or discharged any primary obligation to the plaintiff in the state case, and no judgment had been rendered against him.

Contribution ClaimIndemnity ClaimSummary Judgment MotionPremature Cause of ActionJoint TortfeasorsStatute of Limitations DefenseTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeDiversity JurisdictionTort LawVicarious Liability
References
16
Case No. ADJ9950339
Regular
Jan 05, 2017

JAMES GARZA vs. OREILLYS AUTO PARTS, CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied James Garza's Petition for Removal because it found the WCJ's determination that the orthopedic panel was correct was within the WCAB's jurisdiction. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result, and reconsideration is an inadequate remedy. The WCAB was not persuaded that these conditions were met. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalMedical Unit PanelOrthopedic PanelJurisdictionSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmExtraordinary RemedyReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,196 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