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

Bruno v. Dynamic Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves a personal injury action where Dynamic Enterprises, Inc. appealed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Dynamic contended it was engaged in a joint venture with Executive Club International, Inc. (ECI), the plaintiff's employer, arguing for dismissal based on workers' compensation exclusivity. However, the court found no joint venture, noting Dynamic and ECI were separate corporate entities, filed separate tax returns, and did not share income or losses. Consequently, Dynamic's workers' compensation defense was dismissed, and the judgment was unanimously affirmed with costs.

Personal InjuryJoint VentureWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityCorporate LiabilityAffirmation of JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipNegligenceBusiness LawLegal Precedent
References
5
Case No. 95-0401
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 1996

National Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Godbey

This case is an original mandamus proceeding before the Supreme Court of Texas concerning the disqualification of a law firm, Baker & Botts. Relators, National Medical Enterprises (NME) and Ron Cronen, sought to disqualify Baker & Botts from representing plaintiffs in a lawsuit against NME. The key issues were whether a lawyer is disqualified if another lawyer in the same firm received confidential information from NME during a joint defense agreement, and whether the lawsuit against NME was adverse to Cronen, a former NME employee represented by the firm. The Supreme Court disagreed with the district court, finding that the firm was indeed disqualified due to the duty to preserve NME's confidences under the joint defense agreement and because the pending action was adverse to Cronen. The Court ordered the disqualification of Baker & Botts.

Mandamus ProceedingAttorney DisqualificationJoint Defense AgreementConfidential InformationFiduciary DutyAttorney-Client PrivilegeProfessional Conduct RulesConflict of InterestFormer ClientSubstantially Related Matter
References
39
Case No. 05-17-01421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2018

in Re: Enterprise Crude Oil, LLC

This legal document is Magellan Crude Oil Pipeline Company, L.P.'s (Real Party in Interest) response to an Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Enterprise Crude Oil, LLC (Relator). The core dispute revolves around Enterprise's alleged breach of a Crude Oil Distribution Agreement, specifically its 10-year commitment to exclusively use Magellan's Houston-area crude oil distribution facilities. Enterprise sought to prevent discovery, claiming requests were overbroad, burdensome, and sought trade secrets or inadmissible parol evidence. Magellan argues the mandamus should be denied, asserting its discovery requests are relevant to contract breach, fraud, and promissory estoppel claims, and that Enterprise's objections lack merit given Magellan's contractual audit rights. The document concludes by advocating for the denial of Enterprise's mandamus petition.

Contract DisputeMandamusDiscovery OrderTrade SecretsParol EvidenceSummary JudgmentRequirements ContractPipeline TransportationCrude OilGood Faith
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Exotic Island Enterprises

This case involves appeals by Exotic Island Enterprises and Sliffer Enterprises, Inc., corporations owned by Keith Slifstein, against decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Department of Labor had initially determined that exotic dancers performing at their venues, Fantasy Island Gent Club and Pleasure Island II, were employees, leading to assessments for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the corporations exercised sufficient direction and control over the dancers to establish an employment relationship. Factors included Slifstein's involvement in dancer selection, scheduling, pricing for private dances, retention of a percentage of earnings, and provision of performance infrastructure. The court also noted the corporations' failure to provide remuneration documentation, allowing the Department to assess contributions based on available information.

Unemployment Insurance AppealExotic Dancers Employee StatusEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance ContributionsAdministrative Law Judge DecisionWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBusiness Operations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sherman Simon Enterprises, Inc. v. Lorac Service Corp.

This case before the Texas Supreme Court concerns a deceptive trade practices claim brought by Lorac Service Corporation against Sherman Simon Enterprises, Inc., a Hertz franchisee. Lorac alleged that Sherman Simon Enterprises misrepresented that its automobile rental agreement provided liability insurance coverage and subsequently refused to honor this coverage after an accident involving a Lorac employee. While the trial court and court of appeals found in favor of Lorac, awarding treble damages and attorney's fees, Sherman Simon Enterprises appealed, challenging Lorac's consumer status and the sufficiency of evidence for misrepresentation. The Supreme Court upheld Lorac's qualification as a consumer under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. However, the court ultimately concluded there was no evidence of misrepresentation, as Sherman Simon Enterprises did provide the promised liability coverage through its insurer, even though the insurer initially refused to defend Lorac. Consequently, the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of Sherman Simon Enterprises.

Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Consumer StatusAutomobile Rental AgreementLiability Insurance CoverageMisrepresentationAgencyCorporation as ConsumerInsurance Contract BreachAppellate ReviewTexas Supreme Court
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawler v. Dallas Statler-Hilton Joint Venture

Dalia H. Lawler, a hotel maid supervisor, sustained injuries when a ceiling collapsed, leading her to file for workers' compensation and receive benefits. Subsequently, she sued her employer, Dallas Statler-Hilton Joint Venture, and its members, Hilton Hotels Corporation (HHC) and The Prudential Insurance Company of America, along with Commerce Garage Joint Venture, for negligence under premises liability. The defendants were granted summary judgment, asserting immunity under the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. On appeal, Lawler challenged the trial court's decision, arguing that the joint venture and its members were not all her employers. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that individual members of a joint venture are considered employers for workers' compensation purposes, thus barring Lawler's separate negligence claim.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentJoint VentureEmployer ImmunityExclusive RemedyNegligenceTexas Civil ProcedureAffidavit CompetencyAgency Principles
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Copper v. Cavalry Staffing, LLC

Derek Copper and Leslie Minto filed a collective action against Cavalry Staffing, Tracy Hester, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime, minimum-wage violations, and inaccurate wage statements. Enterprise's motion to dismiss based on not being an employer was denied, with the court finding sufficient pleading for joint employer status. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss was denied for overtime and wage statement claims, but granted for minimum-wage claims. The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a collective action, finding adequate factual showing from named plaintiffs and additional affidavits. The parties were directed to agree on notice procedures for opt-in plaintiffs.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawUnpaid OvertimeMinimum WageWage StatementsJoint EmployerCollective ActionConditional CertificationMotion to DismissWage Theft Prevention Act
References
24
Case No. 2018-08-1394
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2019

Johnson, Frederick v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car

Frederick Johnson, a service technician, sustained injuries when a co-worker accidentally struck him with a van at Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Enterprise denied his claim, asserting his injuries resulted from horseplay and willful misconduct, which the employer prohibited. However, the Court found insufficient evidence to support the horseplay defense, concluding instead that the incident stemmed from a miscommunication and the co-worker's improper driving. The Court ruled that Mr. Johnson is likely to prevail on the merits, granting him medical and temporary total disability benefits. Enterprise was ordered to cover incurred medical expenses, provide a panel of physicians, and pay $885.95 in temporary total disability.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingHorseplay DefenseWillful MisconductMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityCredibility AssessmentMiscommunicationEmployee InjuryEmployer Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2001

Blackburn v. Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P.

Jane T. Blackburn sued Columbia Medical Center for medical malpractice, alleging vicarious liability for Dr. Noss's negligence under a 'joint enterprise' theory with Medical Imaging of Dallas. The trial court granted summary judgment for Columbia, finding insufficient evidence of a joint enterprise. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Blackburn failed to demonstrate a community of pecuniary interest between Columbia and Medical Imaging. The court clarified that while sharing profits and losses is not always required for a joint enterprise, evidence of pooled efforts, shared monetary resources, cost reduction, or economic gain was absent, thus disproving the joint enterprise claim.

Medical MalpracticeJoint EnterpriseSummary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorPecuniary InterestHospital LiabilityRadiologist NegligenceCervical FractureTexas Law
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson v. Joint Board of Coat, Suit & Allied Garment Workers Unions, ILGWU

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against the Joint Board of Coat, Suit and Allied Garment Workers Union, ILGWU, AFL-CIO. This action stemmed from a charge by Hazantown, Inc., alleging the Joint Board engaged in unfair labor practices by picketing for recognition without filing an election petition within the statutory thirty-day period. Hazantown, a New York garment manufacturer utilizing contractors, became the target of picketing aimed at securing a "jobbers' agreement," which would obligate Hazantown to deal exclusively with union contractors, despite the Joint Board's disclaimer of interest in representing Hazantown's direct employees. The picketing demonstrably hindered Hazantown's business operations by inducing a stoppage of deliveries. Despite the complex statutory interpretation issues regarding Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, the District Court, acknowledging its narrow jurisdiction, found "reasonable cause" to believe an unfair labor practice had occurred. Consequently, to maintain the status quo pending a full adjudication by the Board, the court granted the temporary injunction.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingLabor Union RecognitionGarment Industry ExemptionJobber's AgreementNLRA Section 8(b)(7)(C)NLRA Section 8(e)District Court Jurisdiction
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,473 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