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. 05-21-00758-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2022

Yvette Branch v. Laura McCaskill, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage NRT Texas LLC, Full Scope Property Inspection PLLC

Yvette Branch appealed a trial court's judgment awarding attorney's fees to Laura McCaskill, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, and NRT Texas, LLC. The case originated from a failed real estate transaction where Branch was the buyer and appellees represented the sellers. Branch subsequently sued the appellees, alleging various claims including violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), fraud, trespass, and negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees on all claims and awarded them attorney's fees. On appeal, Branch challenged the attorney's fee award, arguing it was not authorized by contract, not justified under the DTPA, and not reasonable or necessary. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the attorney's fees were authorized by the 'related to this contract' clause in the real estate agreement and that the awarded amount was reasonable and necessary.

Attorney's FeesSummary JudgmentReal Estate ContractDeceptive Trade Practices ActTrespass ClaimNegligence ClaimFraud ClaimAppellate ReviewTexas Civil PracticePrevailing Party
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larabee v. Governor of the State

Members of the New York State Judiciary initiated a lawsuit against various State of New York officials, challenging the government's failure to increase judicial compensation since 1999. The plaintiffs asserted two causes of action: an unconstitutional diminishment of compensation due to inflation and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine through the practice of 'linkage' – tying judicial salary increases to legislative pay raises. The Supreme Court dismissed the first cause of action and all claims against the Governor, but granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the second cause of action, finding that linkage unconstitutionally abused power by depriving the Judiciary of compensation increases. This appellate court affirmed both Supreme Court orders, agreeing that legislative inaction did not constitute a direct diminishment of compensation but that the employed 'linkage' violated the separation of powers by subordinating the judicial branch to the political maneuvering of the executive and legislative branches. The dismissal of the Governor as a defendant was also affirmed.

Judicial CompensationSeparation of PowersLegislative ImmunityJudicial IndependenceConstitutional LawLinkage DoctrineInflation ImpactNew York State GovernmentBudgetary PoliticsAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 01-01-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Lozano, Lillian v. Spring Branch Independent School District

Lillian Lozano, a police officer for Spring Branch Independent School District (SBISD), appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of SBISD. Lozano had filed a complaint against a fellow officer for a disparaging remark, after which she was investigated for alleged policy violations and subsequently terminated. She sued SBISD under the Texas Whistleblower Act, alleging her termination was retaliatory. The court found that Lozano presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the causation element of her claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationSummary Judgment AppealCausationEmployment LawPublic Employee RightsPolicy ViolationGood Faith ReportCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 09-01-496 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2002

the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston v. Terry Savoy

Terry Savoy sued her employer, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB), for wrongful termination, alleging violations of the anti-retaliation provision in the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and the Texas Whistleblowers' Act. The trial court initially denied UTMB's plea to the jurisdiction on the workers' compensation claim but granted it for the whistleblower claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that sovereign immunity was not waived for claims under Labor Code § 411.083 against the University of Texas System, reversing the trial court's decision on that claim. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the whistleblower claim, finding that Savoy failed to exhaust the mandatory administrative appeal procedures. Consequently, the entire cause was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityWrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation ActWhistleblowers' ActAnti-retaliationJurisdictionAdministrative ExhaustionAppellate ProcedureLabor LawGovernmental Immunity
References
6
Case No. E2018-00232-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2019

Branch Banking And Trust Company v. Wayne R. Hill

The plaintiff bank, Branch Banking and Trust Company, sought a deficiency judgment against defendant real estate developers, Wayne R. Hill, Cornelia D. Hill, and Rainbow Ridge Resort, LLC, following the foreclosure sale of several tracts of real property. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the bank, finding the developers liable for deficiency balances on promissory notes and guaranty agreements, along with accrued interest, fees, and attorney's fees. The developers appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of their request to cross-examine the bank's witnesses and introduce evidence regarding the adequacy of the foreclosure sales prices and process. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the defense of inadequacy of the foreclosure sales prices was an affirmative defense that the appellants had waived by failing to properly plead it prior to trial. The court also found the Uniform Commercial Code requirements concerning "commercially reasonable" sales inapplicable to transfers of real property.

Deficiency JudgmentForeclosure SalePromissory NotesGuaranty AgreementsReal PropertyResort CabinsAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseWaiver of Defense
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fourth Branch Associates v. Department of Environmental Conservation

Petitioners Joseph Harris and Fourth Branch Associates initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)'s issuance of a 'Notice of Complete Application and Determination of No Significance' and a '401 Water Quality Certificate' for a proposed hydroelectric project by ENERCO Corporation and Adirondack Hydro Development Corporation (AHDC). Petitioners contended that NYSDEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring an environmental assessment form, an environmental impact statement, or public hearings. AHDC argued federal preemption by the Federal Power Act, limiting NYSDEC's review to water quality standards. NYSDEC also moved for remand, acknowledging a procedural error in not requiring an environmental assessment form but arguing against preemption. The court determined that the Federal Power Act preempts NYSDEC from conducting a full SEQRA environmental review, limiting its authority to assessing compliance with State water quality standards. Consequently, NYSDEC was found to lack authority to require SEQRA-mandated forms, statements, or hearings for the 401 water quality certification.

Environmental LawFederal PreemptionWater Quality CertificationHydroelectric ProjectsState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Federal Power ActCPLR Article 78 ProceedingState AuthorityEnvironmental ReviewRegulatory Control
References
56
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06248 [199 AD3d 1362]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2021

Branch v. 1908 W. Ridge Rd, LLC

Plaintiff Shawntrell Branch sought damages for injuries sustained during roof replacement work, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Monroe County, initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and partially denied the defendants' cross-motion. However, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously reversed this decision. The appellate court determined that the plaintiff's back injury, which occurred while lifting a metal structure a few inches, did not constitute an elevation-related hazard covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). The Court concluded that the injury arose from a routine workplace risk, not a pronounced risk due to elevation differentials, and consequently dismissed the amended complaint against the defendants-appellants.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-related hazardsSummary judgmentRoofing workBack injuryConstruction siteRoutine workplace riskGravityAppellate reviewDismissal of complaint
References
6
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. 14-15-00449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2015

the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston v. Carolyn Callas, Ray Callas and Jamie Callas, Individually and as the Representatives of the Estate of Gerald Callas and for and on Behalf of Any Wrongful Death Beneficiaries

This is an appeal regarding a health care liability claim brought by the Appellees, Carolyn, Ray, and Jamie Callas, as representatives of Gerald Callas's estate. The Appellant, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, is appealing the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss. The core of the appeal revolves around the Appellees' alleged failure to timely serve their expert report and curriculum vitae within the mandatory 120-day deadline specified by Section 74.351(a) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. The Appellant contends that strict compliance with this deadline is mandatory and argues that the Appellees' attempted email service was neither proper nor timely, even considering potential extensions under Rule 4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The Appellant seeks a reversal of the trial court's order and the dismissal of the cause of action with prejudice.

Health Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeExpert ReportService DeadlineMotion to DismissStrict ComplianceTexas Civil Practice & Remedies CodeTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate ProcedureElectronic Service
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 1,921 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