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

F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez

The case "F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez" involves a dissenting opinion from a Texas Supreme Court decision concerning the application of proportionate-responsibility statutes to Dram Shop Act claims. The Dueñez family sued F.F.P., a convenience store, after a head-on collision caused by an intoxicated driver who purchased alcohol from F.F.P., resulting in severe injuries. Justice O'Neill's dissent argues that the majority's decision erred by undermining the Dram Shop Act's derivative-liability component, which holds providers responsible for their customers' actions and ensures full recovery for innocent third parties. The dissent contends that the legislative intent was to deter alcohol sales to obviously intoxicated individuals and protect public welfare, a policy compromised by the majority's interpretation that shifts responsibility to potentially insolvent patrons.

Dram Shop ActProportionate ResponsibilityVicarious LiabilityComparative NegligenceAlcoholic Beverage CodeThird-Party InjuryIntoxicated DriverLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
15
Case No. 02-0381
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2006

F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. D/B/A Mr. Cut Rate 602 v. Xavier Duenez, and Wife, Irene Duenez, as Next Friends of Carlos Duenez and Pablo Duenez, Minors

This case addresses the applicability of Texas's proportionate responsibility scheme (Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code) to dram shop liability claims. The Supreme Court of Texas revisited and affirmed its holding in Smith v. Sewell, clarifying that the proportionate responsibility statute includes claims under the Dram Shop Act, meaning a dram shop is only responsible for its proportionate share of damages, not automatically all damages caused by an intoxicated patron. The Court reversed the lower court's judgment, which had found F.F.P. Operating Partners vicariously liable and had severed F.F.P.'s cross-action against the intoxicated driver, Ruiz. The Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion by severing the claim and refusing to submit jury questions on Ruiz's proportion of responsibility. The case was remanded for a new trial to allow for proper apportionment of responsibility among all liable parties.

Dram Shop ActProportionate ResponsibilityComparative ResponsibilityVicarious LiabilityNegligent EntrustmentProximate CauseStatutory InterpretationSeverance of ClaimsApportionment of DamagesIntoxication Assault
References
21
Case No. CA 11-02000
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2012

OLSEN, MICHAEL JAMES v. KOZLOWSKI, SHIRLEY F.

Plaintiff Michael James Olsen commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained from falling during residence construction. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants Louis F. Kozlowski and Shirley F. Kozlowski (property owners) cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted dismissal against Louis F. Kozlowski and denied dismissal against Shirley F. Kozlowski, also granting plaintiff's motion against Shirley F. Kozlowski. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying plaintiff's motion in its entirety, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Shirley F. Kozlowski was an officer of the employer, which could bar the action under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Personal InjuryLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationOfficer LiabilityEmployer ImmunityConstruction AccidentFall from Height
References
20
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01310 [169 AD3d 549]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Matter of Samantha F. (Edwin F.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Family Court, Bronx County, which found that respondent Edwin F. sexually abused the eldest child and derivatively neglected his other children. The appeal was found to be properly taken from an appealable order. The court determined that the finding of sexual abuse was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including the child's detailed out-of-court statements corroborated by the mother's testimony, a sibling's statements, and expert testimony. The sexual abuse also supported the finding of derivative neglect, as it demonstrated the respondent's defective understanding of parental obligations, placing other children at substantial risk.

Child NeglectSexual AbuseDerivative NeglectAppellate ReviewFamily Court ProceedingsCorroborated TestimonyExpert Witness TestimonyParental ObligationsRisk AssessmentChild Protection Services
References
5
Case No. 02-18-00299-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

in the Interest of T.F., T.F., and T.F., Children

Appellant Rita Ford appealed the denial of her motion for new trial, seeking relief from a default order issued against her in favor of appellee Chris Ford regarding conservatorship, child support, medical support, and visitation. Rita failed to appear for a hearing due to an adverse reaction to newly prescribed medications. The appellate court applied the three-part Craddock test, finding Rita provided sufficient, uncontroverted evidence that her failure to appear was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, she had a meritorious defense concerning the children's best interest, and a new hearing would not cause undue delay or prejudice. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Rita's motion for new trial. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Motion for New TrialDefault JudgmentChild ConservatorshipChild Support EnforcementParental VisitationCraddock Test ApplicationAppellate ProcedureFamily Law DisputeJudicial DiscretionMedical Incapacity Defense
References
15
Case No. 04-13-00201-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2014

Bank of America, N.A. as Trustee of Bettye Baker Brown Trust, U/w, F/B/O William David Deiss, Bettye Baker Brown Trust U/w, F/B/O Diane Elizabeth Mysliweic, Bettye Baker Brown Trust U/W/, F/B/O Paula Jane Roberts, Dorothy Baker Shaw 1966 Trust, Baker E. v. Prize Energy Resources, L.P., Prize Operating Company, Gruy Petroleum Management Company N/K/A Cimarex Energy Co. of Colorado, Magnum Hunter Resources, Inc., Cimarex Energy Co., Hunter Gas Gathering, Inc., Pat R. Rutherford Jr., Michael G. Rutherford, Rut

This case, heard by the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, addresses a dispute over the termination of an oil, gas, and mineral lease and a joint operating agreement (JOA) in McMullen County. Appellants, led by Bank of America as trustee, contested a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Appellees, Prize Energy Resources, concerning the alleged fraudulent inducement of a ratification agreement. The core issues involved the Bank's claims of waiver, ratification, quasi-estoppel, and adverse possession, all stemming from the belief that the Baker Lease terminated due to a cessation of production. The appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the Bank's knowledge of fraud and its intent to waive its claims, as well as the applicability of quasi-estoppel and adverse possession. Consequently, the trial court's grant of summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Oil and gas leaseJoint operating agreementMineral interestsLease terminationFraudulent inducementRatificationWaiverQuasi-estoppelAdverse possessionSummary judgment
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mitchell v. A.F. Roosevelt Avenue Corp.

The plaintiff, injured on a construction job, received workers' compensation benefits and then sued A.F. Roosevelt Avenue Corp., 149 Roosevelt Avenue Associates, and TTF Roosevelt Avenue Corp. for personal injuries. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment only for A.F. Roosevelt Avenue Corp. The defendants 149 Roosevelt Avenue Associates and TTF Roosevelt Avenue Corp. appealed, arguing they were joint venturers with A.F. Roosevelt Avenue Corp. and thus immune under the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The appellate court found sufficient proof of a joint venture, establishing that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy was workers' compensation, and therefore reversed the lower court's order, dismissing the complaint against the appealing defendants in its entirety.

Workers' CompensationJoint VentureSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentCollateral EstoppelPartnership AgreementAppellate CourtEmployer-Employee
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 1984

In re Kim F.

The Family Court, New York County, issued a final order of disposition adjudicating 15-year-old Kim F. a juvenile delinquent for acts constituting arson in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree. This adjudication followed a guilty plea entered in Rockland County Family Court concerning an incident where Kim F. intentionally started a fire at a mental health center. The appellate court reversed this order, vacated the guilty plea, and remanded the case to the Rockland County Family Court for further proceedings. The reversal was based on several procedural errors, including the failure to notify Kim F.'s parents, inadequate advisement of her rights to remain silent and counsel, and the lack of an admission of intentional damage, which is a required element of the crimes charged. The court emphasized the necessity for both the minor and a parent to understand and waive such fundamental rights before a guilty plea can be accepted.

Juvenile DelinquencyArson Second DegreeCriminal Mischief Fourth DegreeGuilty PleaParental NotificationRight to CounselRight to Remain SilentDue ProcessVacated PleaRemand
References
6
Case No. 03-05-00182-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2005

Mark F. McDonnell, M.D. v. Texas Worker's Compensation Commission and Richard F. Reynolds

Appellant Mark F. McDonnell, M.D. filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. The court reviewed the motion, noting that no opposition was presented. Consequently, the appellate court decided to grant the motion. This action resulted in the dismissal of the appeal, concluding the case at this level.

Appeal DismissalUnopposed MotionAppellate ProcedureTexas Court of AppealsCivil AppealWorkers' Compensation CommissionDr. McDonnellMotion PracticeTravis County Appeal
References
1
Case No. 01-15-00571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2015

in the Interest of A.G. and F.G., Children

This is an appellant's brief appealing the termination of parental rights for children A.G. and F.G., involving S.F. (mother) and the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). DFPS intervened after reports of child neglect, including F.G. found unsupervised. The mother, S.F., has a history of mental health issues (depression, bipolar disorder), marijuana use, and unstable housing, and allegedly failed to comply with court-ordered service plans. The trial court terminated her parental rights under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(1)(D), (E), (L), and (O), also finding it to be in the children's best interest. The appellant argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the termination and the 'best interest' finding, emphasizing A.G.'s expressed desire against termination and potential instability in the children's current kinship placement with their godmother.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectInsufficient EvidenceBest Interest of ChildSubstance AbuseMental Health IssuesKinship PlacementDomestic RelationsTexas Family CodeAppellate Review
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 1,703 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