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. 03-01-00084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2002

John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C./Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association/John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C.

This case involves cross-appeals from a judgment by the District Court of Travis County. John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C. (Berkel) sued the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA) and a receiver, seeking to enforce a contract for $6,306, which represented a previously approved "covered claim" for legal services. The trial court awarded Berkel the $6,306 but denied claims for statutory attorney's fees, prejudgment, and postjudgment interest. TPCIGA appealed the $6,306 award, arguing the claim was not a covered claim, but the appellate court affirmed this part, holding the Receiver's prior determination was binding. Berkel appealed the denial of attorney's fees and interest, and the appellate court reversed and remanded this part for further proceedings.

Insurance LawReceivershipImpaired InsurerCovered ClaimsStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesPrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestSummary JudgmentContract Enforcement
References
9
Case No. 01-15-00919-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2015

in Re Vicki Johns, Individually and as an Heir of Brian Edward Johns

This document is a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Vicki Johns in the First Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas. She challenges the Probate Court Number One of Harris County, Texas, and its presiding Judge, Honorable Loyd Wright, for partially denying her motion to compel discovery against real parties in interest, Frances Sowell and Corey Johns. The underlying case is a wrongful death action concerning Brian Edward Johns, where a global settlement has been reached with the original defendants (Dow Chemical, etc.). The remaining disputes involve the allocation of settlement proceeds and the validity of Vicki Johns' common law marriage to the deceased. Vicki Johns argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying her discovery requests and that she lacks an adequate appellate remedy.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeCommon Law MarriageWrongful DeathSettlement AllocationProbate CourtAppellate ProcedureEvictionFoster ChildrenAdoption
References
12
Case No. 01-14-00906-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2014

John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC v. the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Inc.

This appeal concerns a judgment for attorneys' fees awarded to the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston (Houston BBB) against John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. John Moore initially filed a lawsuit alleging various torts, and the Houston BBB moved to dismiss under the Anti-SLAPP statute. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the Houston BBB's motion, leading to a jury trial on attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions. The jury found in favor of the Houston BBB, and the trial court entered a judgment consistent with the verdict, dismissing John Moore's claims with prejudice and awarding fees and sanctions. John Moore, as the appellant, argues that the awarded attorneys' fees are not legally sufficient due to inadequate documentation and that a new trial is warranted to consider all of its claims, including antitrust claims, which it contends were improperly severed. The core argument is about the reasonableness and necessity of the fees and the equity of the award given the procedural history.

Attorneys' FeesAnti-SLAPP StatuteAppellate ProcedureCase ConsolidationJudicial DiscretionLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceReasonableness of FeesSanctionsTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeFree Speech Rights
References
18
Case No. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Education Foundation, Dan Parsons, Chris Church, Church Enterprises, Inc., Gary Milleson, Ronald N. McMillan, D' Artagnan Bebel, Mark Goldie, Cha v. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. 13-15-00342-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2015

Copano NGL Services, LLC v. John Ashcraft, Individually and as Trustee for the John Ashcraft Family Trust 2012

This case involves an appeal filed by Copano NGL Services, LLC, challenging a trial court's judgment that dismissed Copano's appeal from a special commissioners' condemnation award. Copano initiated an eminent domain proceeding to acquire land from John Ashcraft for a pipeline. After the special commissioners issued an award, Copano filed objections. However, the trial court found these objections untimely, adopted the commissioners' award, and dismissed Copano's appeal. Copano argues that the statutory deadline for filing objections was tolled due to the trial court clerk's failure to timely mail notice of the commissioners' decision by certified mail, as mandated by Texas Property Code § 21.049 and established Supreme Court precedent. Copano seeks to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a trial de novo on the condemnation award.

Eminent DomainCondemnation LawStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureNotice RequirementsJurisdiction DisputeTexas Property CodeTimeliness of ObjectionsSpecial Commissioners' AwardProperty Valuation
References
33
Case No. ADJ3003658 (SFO 0395337)
Regular
Mar 08, 2012

JOHN CANZIANI vs. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL

In Case No. ADJ3003658, the Applicant, John Canziani, filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a prior decision. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew this petition. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the petition for reconsideration as requested.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantCity of San RafaelPermissibly Self-InsuredCase NumberOrder Dismissing
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johns v. AMC Beauty Salon

Petitioner Angelo Johns claimed an unapproved sublease from AMC Beauty Salon for psychic office space at 465 Lexington Avenue, New York. AMC surrendered the entire premises to Sol Goldman Investments, LLC (SGI) on June 2, 2010, representing no other occupants were present. Johns, who paid cash rent to AMC and avoided SGI detection, returned from vacation to find the premises locked. The court found Johns's testimony not fully credible regarding his regular presence and SGI's knowledge of the sublease. SGI credibly testified they were unaware of the sublease and saw no evidence of Johns's occupancy during a walk-through. Concluding Johns purposely hid his occupancy and SGI had no knowledge of it, the court dismissed the petition.

Landlord-TenantSubleaseVoluntary SurrenderOccupancy RightsUnapproved SubleaseCommercial LeasePsychic BusinessEvictionNew York LawCredibility Findings
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Permian Basin Community Centers for Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Johns

Bob Johns sued Permian Basin Community Centers for Mental Health and Mental Retardation (PBCC) under the Texas Whistleblower Act, claiming wrongful termination after reporting alleged client abuse. Johns, a community living instructor, was suspended and later not rehired after reporting bruises on a resident. PBCC argued Johns was not their employee and failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The jury found in favor of Johns, but on appeal, PBCC contended that Johns failed to meet the jurisdictional prerequisite of exhausting administrative grievance procedures. The appellate court agreed, finding that Johns had not conclusively proven compliance with PBCC's internal grievance procedures, which were a mandatory prerequisite for filing suit under the Act. Consequently, the judgment for Johns was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court with orders to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Whistleblower ActPublic EmployeeAdministrative RemediesJurisdictional PrerequisiteRetaliation ClaimWrongful TerminationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorGrievance ProcedureAbuse Reporting
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re John Lack Associates, LLC

John Lack Associates, LLC, an agency placing waiters and bartenders, was audited by the Department of Labor, which determined these workers were employees, making John Lack liable for unemployment insurance contributions. This determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence of John Lack's control over the workers. The court noted that workers could refuse jobs, often worked for other agencies, provided their own equipment, and were supervised and directed by the client at events, who also paid their remuneration through John Lack. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance contributionsAgency controlRight to controlRemittedAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor Law
References
5
Case No. 01-13-00923-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2014

Virginia Dailey and John W. Dailey v. Frank Dailey and Terry Dailey

Virginia Dailey and John W. Dailey appealed the dismissal of their claims against Frank Dailey and Terry Dailey, which arose from the conveyance of real property. Virginia and John had sold property to their son Frank and his wife Terry, then later sued to set aside the conveyance, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy. Frank and Terry asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and specific performance. The trial court initially dismissed Virginia and John's claims, then reinstated Frank and Terry's counterclaims, and subsequently dismissed Virginia and John's claims for want of prosecution. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that Virginia and John failed to properly assign error to the final judgment (the June 24th dismissal for want of prosecution) and did not preserve their argument for appellate review, nor provide evidence meeting the Craddock standard.

Real PropertyProperty ConveyanceFraud AllegationsBreach of Fiduciary DutyConspiracy to Commit FraudBreach of ContractSpecific PerformanceDismissal of ClaimsWant of ProsecutionAppellate Procedure
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,443 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