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

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

White Budd Van Ness Partnership v. Major-Gladys Drive Joint Venture

A joint venture, Plaintiff/Appellee Major-Gladys Drive Joint Venture, sued Defendant/Appellant The White Budd Van Ness Partnership, an architectural firm, for damages stemming from their alleged failure to properly investigate and advise on the use of 'C-Tile' in a shopping center construction. The 'C-Tile' proved unsuitable and had to be replaced. The jury found the architects liable for deceptive trade practices, including misrepresentations and unconscionable actions, as well as negligence and breach of contract. The trial court entered a judgment of $498,157.40 plus attorney's fees against the architects. On appeal, the court affirmed the applicability of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) to professional architectural services and extended the implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance to such services. The appellate court overruled various points of error raised by the architects, including issues related to a 'Mary Carter' settlement agreement with a co-defendant contractor. The judgment was reformed to disallow a $41,000.00 credit granted to the architects and, as reformed, was affirmed.

Architect MalpracticeDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Professional Services LiabilityImplied WarrantyUnconscionable ActionNegligenceBreach of ContractConstruction DefectsC-Tile FailureExpert Testimony
References
26
Case No. 13-08-108-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2009

Valerie Clark and Holly Venture, a Texas Joint Venture v. South Padre Island Development, L.L.C.

Appellants Valerie Clark and Holly Venture appealed multiple summary judgments granted in favor of South Padre Island Development, L.L.C., Town of Laguna Vista, and Cameron County. The core of the dispute was a declaratory judgment action concerning Clark's rights regarding the alleged unauthorized closure of a public road, which she contended violated statutory procedures. Clark also challenged the trial court's rulings on her standing to sue and the award of attorney's fees. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Cameron County had no jurisdiction over the road, which fell under the exclusive control of Laguna Vista. The court further concluded that Clark lacked standing because she did not own property directly abutting the contested section of the road and upheld the award of attorney's fees.

Summary Judgment AppealDeclaratory Judgment ActionRoad Closure DisputeProperty Law StandingMunicipal JurisdictionCounty ResponsibilityAttorney's Fees AwardAppellate ProcedureFinality of JudgmentDue Process Claim
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Z.A.O., Inc. v. Yarbrough Drive Center Joint Venture

Yarbrough Drive Center Joint Venture (Yarbrough) sued Z.A.O., Inc. (ZAO) for breach of contract, nuisance, and trespass after ZAO, a former tenant operating a gas station, failed to remove hazardous substances from the leased property in El Paso, Texas upon lease termination. Despite ZAO's efforts and a state commission letter indicating no further corrective action was necessary for ZAO, the trial court found ZAO liable for trespass and nuisance. On appeal, the court affirmed the breach of contract claim, finding sufficient evidence that the lease required ZAO to remove all toxic substances. However, the appellate court reversed the findings of malice, nuisance, and trespass due to insufficient evidence, particularly noting that the state commission's determination of no further action superseded common law trespass claims. Consequently, the awards for past and future rental losses were reversed, but those for repair costs and soil testing were affirmed. Attorney's fees were reversed and remanded for segregation, as recovery is limited to the breach of contract claim.

Breach of ContractNuisanceTrespassEnvironmental ContaminationHazardous WasteLease AgreementDamagesAttorney's FeesLegal SufficiencyFactual Sufficiency
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1993

Gramigna v. Morse Diesel, Inc.

A bricklayer, referred to as 'Plaintiff,' was injured on a scaffold at a work site owned by defendant Keio Gijuku, where defendant Joint Venture was the general contractor. A plank on the scaffold broke, causing the plaintiff to become lodged against a wall. The IAS court granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §240(1). On appeal, Joint Venture argued there was no statutory violation because the plaintiff did not fall to the ground. The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that the incident involved an elevation-related risk. However, due to the plaintiff's pre-existing hip condition, the court modified the original order to grant Joint Venture's request for further discovery, while otherwise affirming the summary judgment on liability.

scaffolding accidentLabor Law § 240(1)elevation risksummary judgmentliabilitypre-existing conditionfurther discoveryconstruction accidenthip injuryappellate review
References
4
Case No. 15-25-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2024

Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC, (In Its Own Capacity and as Assignee) v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC and CR Permian Processing, LLC

This is a joint petition for a permissive interlocutory appeal stemming from an order by the Texas Business Court, Eleventh Division. The underlying lawsuit, filed in Harris County in May 2021, involves Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC (and its assignees) against EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC and CR Permian Processing, LLC, concerning natural gas purchase agreements. The parties entered a 'Subsequent Agreement' on September 13, 2024, to bring their dispute to the Texas Business Court, leveraging a statutory provision for jurisdiction by agreement. They filed a Joint Notice of Removal, but the Trial Judge issued an order on December 20, 2024, remanding the case. The judge ruled that House Bill 19's Section 8 limits the Business Court's subject-matter jurisdiction to actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024, which this case predates. However, recognizing substantial grounds for differing opinions and the need for clear precedent for the nascent Business Court, the judge certified a permissive interlocutory appeal on the jurisdictional question and stayed the remand order pending the appeal's resolution.

Jurisdictional DisputeBusiness CourtInterlocutory AppealContract LawEnergy LawNatural GasTexas LawStatutory InterpretationPermissive AppealEffective Date
References
40
Case No. 01-14-00723-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2015

State v. KNA Partners, a Texas Joint Venture

The document is a Sur-reply from Appellee KNA Partners, Inc., responding to the State's Reply Brief in an appeal concerning a condemnation case in Texas. The core dispute centers on whether the State's agreement to restore nine driveways on KNA's property, characterized by KNA as appurtenant easements, constitutes a binding stipulation or an issue tried by consent. KNA argues that the State's counsel unequivocally stated on record that all curb cuts would be restored, which KNA relied upon to forgo a claim for material impairment of access. Furthermore, KNA asserts that payment of compensation, including "in kind" compensation like driveway restoration, is a condition precedent for title transfer in condemnation cases. KNA concludes that the State's appeal is moot because it voluntarily restored the driveways without reserving appellate rights, and therefore prays for the affirmation of the trial court's judgment or the dismissal of the appeal.

CondemnationEasementProperty RightsCurb CutsStipulationMootnessAppellate ProcedureTexas LawEminent DomainPublic Use
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Leveski v. Dic Underhill Joint Venture

The claimant, employed by Die Underhill Joint Venture as a drill runner, developed pneumoconiosis (silicosis) due to his occupation and also suffered from coronary artery disease. He stopped working in December 1975 and applied for workers' compensation benefits for silicosis. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found him totally disabled by his non-work-related coronary condition, rescinding a referee's award, a decision the claimant did not appeal. In August 1979, the claimant sought to reopen his case, but the Board denied this application in February 1980. The appellate court affirmed the Board's denial, ruling that the claimant failed to demonstrate a change of condition or present newly discovered evidence as required for reopening a case.

Workers' CompensationSilicosisOccupational DiseaseCoronary Artery DiseaseMedical TreatmentReopening CaseAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionChange of ConditionNewly Discovered Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2006

Ugijanin v. 2 West 45th Street Joint Venture

The plaintiff, a porter employed by 2 West 45th Street Joint Venture, suffered personal injuries and received workers' compensation benefits from his general employer. The plaintiff subsequently sued Joseph P Day Realty Corp. (JPD), the building's managing agent, alleging negligent maintenance. JPD moved for summary judgment, arguing it was shielded from liability as the plaintiff's special employer under workers' compensation law. The Supreme Court initially denied JPD's motion. On appeal, the higher court reversed, finding sufficient evidence that JPD exclusively controlled the plaintiff's work, including assignments, supervision, and termination authority, establishing a prima facie special employment relationship.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewManaging Agent LiabilityEmployer LiabilityNegligent MaintenanceControl and SupervisionPrima Facie Case
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Primetime 24 Joint Venture v. National Broadcasting Co.

PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture (PT24), a satellite operator, sued major television networks and trade organizations, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and common law. PT24 claimed the defendants conspired to restrict network programming availability to satellite subscribers by abusing the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) challenge system and engaging in a group boycott. Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting their conduct was protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The Court found that both the SHVA challenges and the refusal to negotiate constituted protected petitioning activity, which did not fall under the sham exception. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the antitrust claims and the remaining state law claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Antitrust LawSherman ActNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSatellite TelevisionCopyright InfringementSham LitigationGroup BoycottDirect-to-Home SatelliteNetwork ProgrammingSatellite Home Viewer Act
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 907 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