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. 07-17-00456-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2020

Jones Energy, Inc. and Jones Energy Holdings, LLC v. Pima Oil and Gas, L.L.C.

The case involves a dispute over an Overriding Royalty Interest (ORRI) in oil and gas production from the Gracie 117-1H well in Hemphill County, Texas. Pima Oil and Gas, L.L.C. (assignee) sued Jones Energy, Inc. and Jones Energy Holdings, LLC (operator, assignor's successor) for failing to pay ORRI on production from the horizontal well. The core issue was the interpretation of an "Assignment of Overriding Royalty Interest" and a related "Retainer Agreement," specifically whether an exception clause excluded production from a particular formation interval (Granite Wash A interval) or only from existing vertical wellbores. The trial court granted summary judgment to Pima. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas reversed this decision, ruling that the ORRI did not burden production from the A interval of the Granite Wash formation. The appellate court rendered judgment that the ORRI does not apply to the A interval production and a "take nothing" judgment for Pima's monetary claims, while remanding for a determination of production from other intervals.

Contract InterpretationOverriding Royalty InterestOil and Gas LeaseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewGrammatical InterpretationProducing ZonesHorizontal WellsMineral RightsTexas Law
References
17
Case No. 02-24-00355-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2025

Joyce L. Jones v. Mansfield Independent School District

Joyce L. Jones, an employee of Mansfield Independent School District (MISD), appealed a trial court's decision dismissing her workers’ compensation claim. Jones suffered a work-related injury and, after administrative review by the DWC, filed a petition for judicial review. Her petition sought damages for alleged spoliated evidence and exemplary damages from MISD and the East Texas Educational Insurance Association (ETEIA), but did not address compensability or income benefits, which were the sole issues before the DWC. The trial court granted MISD's plea to the jurisdiction, ruling that Jones failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the issues raised. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that Jones forfeited her appellate issues due to inadequate briefing and that the trial court correctly found a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationPlea to JurisdictionJudicial ReviewAdministrative RemediesExhaustion of RemediesAppellate ProcedureInadequate BriefingSpoliated EvidenceExemplary DamagesTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
Case No. 07-17-00456-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2020

Jones Energy, Inc. and Jones Energy Holdings, LLC v. Pima Oil & Gas, L.L.C.

This case involves a contract dispute over an Assignment of Overriding Royalty Interest (ORRI). Pima Oil & Gas, L.L.C. sued Jones Energy, Inc. and Jones Energy Holdings, L.L.C., claiming unpaid royalties from the Gracie 117-1H well. The trial court initially sided with Pima, but the appellate court found an error in the interpretation of the 'save and except' clause in the assignment. The court clarified that the Retainer Agreement, which governed the assignment, excluded zones already producing from existing wells, not merely specific wellbores. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, remanding the case for a determination of which formation intervals were open to production in the existing wells at the time of Spring Resources, Inc.'s acquisition, and rendered a 'take nothing' judgment in favor of Jones on Pima's monetary claims, pending further proceedings.

Oil and GasContract InterpretationOverriding Royalty InterestSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLease AgreementWellboreProduction IntervalsRetainer AgreementHemphill County
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Echostar Satellite L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. v. Ray Aguilar

Ray Aguilar sued his employers, Echostar Satellite L.L.C. and Dish Network Service, L.L.C., for wrongful termination in violation of the Texas Labor Code Chapter 451, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim after a workplace injury. Aguilar claimed a hostile work environment, denial of a pay raise, and being pressured into unpaid FMLA leave, leading to his termination for 'job abandonment' without proper notice. A jury found in Aguilar's favor, awarding actual and punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the findings of retaliation and constructive discharge, concluding there was sufficient evidence that the employers failed to uniformly enforce their absence control policy and showed a causal link between the claim and termination. However, the court reversed the punitive damages award, finding insufficient evidence of actual malice.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment DiscriminationTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyConstructive TerminationFamily Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Exemplary DamagesLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
42
Case No. 08-10-00328-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2012

Echostar Satellite L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. v. Ray Aguilar

Ray Aguilar, a former employee, sued Echostar Satellite L.L.C. and Dish Network, L.L.C. for wrongful termination under the Texas Labor Code Chapter 451, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. A jury found in Aguilar's favor, awarding actual and exemplary damages. On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the jury's findings regarding the employer's failure to uniformly enforce its absence control policy, the presence of retaliatory discharge, and constructive termination. However, the court reversed the award of exemplary damages, concluding there was insufficient evidence of actual malice.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeAbsence Control PolicyConstructive TerminationExemplary DamagesTexas Labor CodeFMLAJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEmployment Law
References
42
Case No. 09-23-00047-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

Dockside Marine, L.L.C. v. Joshua Walker, Bryan Brown, and HTX Watersports, L.L.C.

Dockside Marine, L.L.C. appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Joshua Walker, Bryan Brown, and HTX Watersports, L.L.C. Dockside's claims included theft, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract, and civil conspiracy, stemming from allegations that Walker, their former General Manager, diverted business and employees to a new competing dealership, HTX. The Court of Appeals partially reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact for theft and conversion claims against all appellees, and for breach of fiduciary duty against Walker. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment for knowing participation in breach of fiduciary duty against Brown and HTX, and for tortious interference and civil conspiracy against all appellees. This affirmation was based on Dockside's failure to present sufficient evidence regarding a "meeting of the minds" or direct interference for these specific claims.

theftconversionbreach of fiduciary dutytortious interferencecivil conspiracysummary judgmentat-will employmentboat dealership disputecontract disputeappellate review
References
39
Case No. 01-15-00733-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2016

in the Interest of D.R.L., C.L.W., Jr., and A.E.L., Children

Margarita Luna and Jason McDonald appealed a trial court order terminating their parental rights to D.R.L., C.L.W., Jr., and A.E.L. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) initiated the termination based on allegations of Luna's physical abuse, neglectful supervision, and physical neglect, alongside her history of drug abuse and non-compliance with her family service plan. McDonald's rights were terminated due to his failure to respond to citation and assert paternity for D.R.L. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the termination of Luna's parental rights was in the children's best interest. It also upheld McDonald's termination under Texas Family Code section 161.002(b)(1), which does not require a best interest finding for an alleged father who fails to respond to citation.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareDrug AbuseNeglectPhysical AbuseFamily LawBest Interest of ChildAppellate ReviewDue ProcessConstitutional Challenge
References
48
Case No. 04-22-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Champion Food Service, Inc. and Champion Food Service 2, Inc. (Cross-Appellee) v. ProAlamo Foods, L.L.C. and ProCoastal, L.L.C. (Cross-Appellant)

Champion Food Service, Inc. and Champion Food Service 2, Inc. (Champion) appealed a final judgment in favor of ProAlamo Foods, L.L.C. and ProCoastal, L.L.C. (Pro Parties) after a jury trial. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order awarding additional post-verdict attorneys' fees to the Pro Parties, finding the re-opening of evidence impermissible. However, the court affirmed the judgment for the Pro Parties on their quantum meruit claim, including attorneys' fees (excluding the reversed post-verdict award). Champion's claims for DTPA violations and breach of implied warranty were denied due to insufficient evidence. The court upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding frozen meat products and text messages.

Quantum MeruitAttorneys' FeesDirected VerdictBreach of ContractImplied WarrantyDTPAAppellate ReviewJury VerdictPost-Verdict FeesFood Distribution
References
48
Case No. 13-13-00331-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2014

Raul Flores, Inc. v. Adrian D. Rodriguez and L & F Distributors, L. L. C.

In this Texas Court of Appeals case, Raul Flores, Inc. (Flores) appealed the trial court's decision in a commercial property damage dispute against Adrian D. Rodriguez and L&F Distributors, L.L.C. (L&F). Flores claimed damages to its car wash canopy and concrete pavement caused by L&F's trucks. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's directed verdict on pavement damage claims due to insufficient causation evidence and the proper exclusion of Flores's expert testimony as unreliable. The court also found no reversible error in the exclusion of lay causation testimony and upheld the directed verdict on exemplary and vicarious liability claims related to the pavement.

Commercial Property DamageDirected VerdictExpert WitnessLay WitnessCausationAppellate ReviewTexas LawEvidence AdmissibilityNegligenceGross Negligence
References
28
Case No. 13-06-471-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2008

Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C. v. Christus Spohn Health System D/B/A Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial

This case involves an appeal from summary judgments. Appellants (Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C., collectively "Texas Treasure") contested the trial court's decision in favor of appellee (Christus Spohn Health System d/b/a Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial, "Christus"). The dispute arose from medical expenses incurred by a seaman, Judy Ann Lanado, employed by Texas Treasure, who suffered severe brain damage after surgery at Christus. Texas Treasure sought to avoid liability for the entire hospital bill and claimed equitable subrogation. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Texas Treasure's motion for summary judgment on its plea in intervention but reversed the granting of Christus's motions for summary judgment on its counterclaim and Texas Treasure's plea in intervention, remanding for further proceedings to determine negligence and attributable expenses.

Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSworn AccountVerified DenialDue ProcessEquitable SubrogationMaintenance and CureMaritime LawAlien CrewmanHospital Expenses
References
52
Showing 1-10 of 2,328 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