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. 07-08-0388-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2009

Elizabeth Overstreet v. Judge Bradley S. Underwood, Individually and in His Capacity as Judge of the 364th Judicial District, Lubbock County, Texas

Elizabeth Overstreet appealed the trial court's decision regarding her employment termination and defamation claims against Judge Bradley Underwood. Overstreet, a Court Coordinator for the 364th District Court, was terminated after reporting an incident of inappropriate touching and subsequently not returning to her position. She filed complaints with the Texas Workforce Commission-Civil Rights Division, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the lawsuit was timely filed under the Texas Labor Code and considered the defamation claim. The court concluded that Overstreet's suit was not timely filed, as the first right-to-sue notice was controlling, and affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment on the defamation claim, finding no defamatory statement was published.

Employment TerminationRetaliation ClaimDefamation LawsuitSummary Judgment AppealJurisdictional PleaStatute of LimitationsTexas Labor CodeCivil Rights ActCourt CoordinatorJudicial Capacity
References
11
Case No. 01-15-00583-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2015

the Honorable Mark Henry, County Judge of Galveston County v. the Honorable Lonnie Cox, Judge of the 56th District Court of Galveston County

This interlocutory appeal concerns a temporary injunction obtained by District Court Judge Lonnie Cox on behalf of Ms. Bonita Quiroga against County Judge Mark Henry of Galveston County. The injunction directed Judge Henry to reinstate Ms. Quiroga's employment as court administrator with a salary of $113,000. The core dispute is over the salary range for the court administrator position, with Judge Cox proposing $85,000-$120,000 and the Commissioners Court setting it at $57,705-$63,695 due to decreased responsibilities. The Appellant argues that new amendments to Section 75.401 of the Government Code, effective September 1, 2015, render the temporary injunction moot. The new statute grants exclusive power to the judges served to appoint the court administrator and to the Commissioners Court to set the salary range, nullifying the injunction's directives. Therefore, the Appellant requests the Court of Appeals to set aside the temporary injunction and dismiss the underlying injunction suit.

Interlocutory AppealTemporary InjunctionMootnessGovernment CodeCourt AdministratorSalary DisputeGalveston CountyCommissioners CourtAppellate ProcedureDismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dal-Briar Corp. v. Baskette

Dal-Briar Corporation, the Relator, filed a mandamus action against Judges Baskette, Callan, and Paxson, seeking to deconsolidate three underlying lawsuits. The original cases involved former employees Margie Garcia, Manuel Apodaca, and David Durbin suing Dal-Briar for discriminatory termination under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act after filing claims. Dal-Briar contended that despite common legal questions, the distinct factual scenarios and defensive strategies in each employee's case would lead to substantial jury confusion and prejudice if consolidated. The court, applying Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 174(a), balanced judicial economy against the risk of an unfair outcome. It concluded that the potential for prejudice and confusion outweighed the convenience of consolidation, conditionally granting the writ of mandamus and directing the respondent judges to vacate the consolidation order due to the lack of an adequate remedy at law for Dal-Briar.

Mandamus ActionConsolidation of ActionsTexas Workers' Compensation ActAbuse of DiscretionJury ConfusionPrejudiceJudicial EconomyRules of Civil ProcedureEmployment DiscriminationDeconsolidation
References
10
Case No. 11-03-00061-CV B
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2004

City of Dallas v. Jim Lowenberg

The City of Dallas appealed a trial court's decision in a class action lawsuit filed by Jim Lowenberg et al. Appellees challenged a Dallas City ordinance from 1994, claiming its registration fee was an unconstitutional occupational tax. The trial court denied the City's summary judgment motion and granted appellees a summary judgment of over $1.8 million, including refunds and attorney's fees. The 11th Court of Appeals reversed this judgment, ruling that the appellees' claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The court determined that the challenge to the ordinance was "facial," meaning the limitation period began when the ordinance was passed, not when the fees were paid, making the 1998 lawsuit untimely.

statute of limitationsunconstitutional ordinancefacial challengeclass action lawsuitsummary judgmentTexas appellate lawmunicipal ordinanceoccupational taxlegal feesappellate review
References
16
Case No. M2012-00304-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2013

State of Tennessee v. Jim George Conaser

The Defendant, Jim George Conaser, appealed his conviction for harassment and the imposition of consecutive sentencing from the Criminal Court for Davidson County. Conaser contended the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court's consecutive sentencing was improper. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding ample evidence, including victim testimony and voice messages, to support the harassment conviction. The appellate court also upheld the consecutive sentences, citing Conaser's extensive criminal history as a valid basis for the trial court's decision to protect the public.

Criminal LawHarassment ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceConsecutive SentencingAppellate ReviewTennesseeCriminal HistoryVictim TestimonySexual HarassmentTrial Court Affirmation
References
15
Case No. 2011-43366
Regular Panel Decision

in Re Noble Drilling (Jim Thompson), LLC

Noble Drilling (Jim Thompson), LLC, seeks mandamus relief from the trial court’s March 4, 2014 sanction order. The sanctions were imposed due to a 15-month delay in producing photographs of an accident scene where Salvadore Maciel was injured. Noble argues the trial court abused its discretion in striking two of its defenses (contributory negligence and open and obvious character of vessel conditions) and in awarding over $50,000 in additional monetary sanctions. The court conditionally grants mandamus relief, in part, directing the trial court to vacate the portion of the order striking Noble's defenses, while denying relief regarding the monetary sanctions.

Mandamus ReliefSanctions OrderDiscovery AbuseStriking DefensesMonetary SanctionsCivil ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionE-DiscoveryAttorney's FeesEvidence Exclusion
References
14
Case No. 07-01-0382-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2003

Jim Stacy Smith v. State

Appellant Jim Stacy Smith appealed his conviction for criminal non-support, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction and to support a finding against his affirmative defense. The appellate court found that Smith intentionally and knowingly failed to provide support for his child, Nathan-Ferril Smith, despite having substantial assets from an inheritance while in prison. He was found to have directed these resources to benefit himself instead of supporting his child. The court also determined that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate his ability to pay support, thereby rejecting his affirmative defense. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Criminal Non-SupportLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAffirmative DefenseChild SupportTexas Court of AppealsConviction AffirmedParental ObligationFinancial AbilityInheritanceIntentional Failure to Support
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Milan Express Co. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co.

The Chief Judge reviewed objections to a Magistrate Judge's order concerning arbitration and venue. The Magistrate Judge had previously granted Milan Express Co., Inc.'s motion to stop arbitration and denied Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc.'s motions to compel arbitration and transfer venue. The Chief Judge conducted a de novo review and upheld the Magistrate Judge's findings. The arbitration clause was deemed invalid under Nebraska law, as the Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) related to an insurance policy but did not fall under the exception for contracts between insurance companies. The motion to transfer venue was also denied, with the court emphasizing the convenience of witnesses in Tennessee over the contractual forum-selection clause. The court ultimately adopted the magistrate judge's decisions.

Arbitration Agreement ValidityForum Selection Clause EnforceabilityMotion to Compel ArbitrationMotion to Stay ArbitrationTransfer of VenueNebraska Statutory InterpretationFederal Arbitration Act ApplicationReinsurance Contract AnalysisEquitable Estoppel DoctrineWaiver of Rights
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blazer Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Jim Cogdill Dodge Co.

This case involves an appeal by Jim Cogdill Dodge Company (Defendant) from a judgment for alleged unpaid insurance premiums owed to Blazer Insurance Agency, Inc. (Plaintiff). The dispute arose after Cogdill canceled insurance policies, citing non-delivery of policy documents and unresolved issues with premium calculations. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Blazer, holding Cogdill liable at a 'short rate' for cancellation. On appeal, the court found Cogdill was justified in canceling the policies due to Blazer's failure to deliver them and Cogdill's lack of notice regarding the termination of Blazer's agent. The judgment was modified, establishing Cogdill's liability for premiums from March 6, 1987, through July 15, 1987, calculated at a regular pro rata rate instead of the 'short rate' basis.

Insurance LawContract LawAgency LawCancellation of InsuranceInsurance PremiumsDelivery of PolicyVenue DisputeAppellate ReviewConstructive DeliveryAgent Authority
References
8
Case No. 8 N.Y.3d 892
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2007

In the Matter of Cagle v. Judge Motor Corporation

This case involves a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The initial motion for leave to appeal was previously denied, as referenced in 7 NY3d 922. Kim M. Cagle, as Voluntary Administrator of the Estate of John R. Cagle, Deceased, is the appellant. Judge Motor Corporation and the Workers' Compensation Board are the respondents. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York considered the motion on February 5, 2007, and rendered its decision on March 22, 2007.

Motion for ReargumentLeave to AppealWorkers' CompensationEstateVoluntary Administrator
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 9,391 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