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. 23-0704
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2025

Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida

Justice Busby's concurring opinion addresses a case involving an off-duty police officer, Chad Seward, who was working as a private security guard for Home Depot and was allegedly negligent, leading to injuries to on-duty officers. The main Court's opinion dismissed claims against Seward due to immunity and reinstated summary judgment for Home Depot and Point 2 Point on vicarious liability claims. Justice Busby highlights that the Court's decision deliberately avoids the significant question of whether employers can be vicariously liable for the torts of off-duty police officers acting within the scope of public employment. The opinion discusses various judicial approaches to this complex issue, contrasting the 'nature of the act' and public policy approaches with the agency law framework adopted by Tennessee courts. Justice Busby concludes by joining the Court's opinion and advocating for future cases to thoroughly explore these considerations within Texas law.

Vicarious LiabilityOff-duty Police OfficerSecurity GuardGovernmental ImmunitySummary JudgmentAgency LawTexas Supreme CourtTort LawScope of EmploymentPublic Policy
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Four Points Shipping & Trading, Inc. v. Poloron Israel, L.P.

The case concerns a dispute over a canceled shipment of prefabricated housing parts. Plaintiff Four Points Shipping and Trading, Inc. sued Poloron Israel, L.P., and TMT Homes, Inc., for lost profits and out-of-pocket expenses. The core issue revolved around a contract between Four Points and Poloron, contingent on a separate manufacturing agreement becoming "effective," which the court interpreted as actual production capability, not just signing. Due to the manufacturer's financial difficulties, the parts were never produced. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the lost profits claim, citing contractual exculpatory clauses and the speculative nature of the damages. However, it denied summary judgment for both parties on the out-of-pocket expenses, allowing Four Points to pursue this claim if it can demonstrate it was misled by Poloron. The court also suggested alternative dispute resolution for the remaining issue.

Contract disputeMaritime lawNew York lawSummary judgmentLost profitsOut-of-pocket expensesBreach of contractContingent contractExculpatory clauseContract interpretation
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maidman v. Incorporated Village of Sands Point

Petitioners Mitchel Maidman and Adam Hanft challenged two resolutions by the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Sands Point, dated May 9, 2000. These resolutions amended the master plan for the Village Club at Sands Point, allowing changes to access roads following a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied their petition, dismissing the proceeding. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court concluding that the Board adequately addressed environmental concerns and did not improperly segment the SEQRA review. The court found that the Board properly identified relevant areas of environmental concern regarding traffic conditions and provided a reasoned elaboration for its determination.

CPLR Article 78SEQRAEnvironmental ReviewMaster Plan AmendmentVillage Club at Sands PointTraffic CirculationIngress and EgressSegmentationJudicial ReviewNassau County
References
6
Case No. 05-22-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2023

Pioneer Emerald Pointe, LLC v. Texmenian Contractors, LLC D/B/A Red Carpet Cleaning and Merge Management, LLC D/B/A Emerald Point Apartments

This case involves a dispute between Pioneer Emerald Pointe, LLC, an apartment complex owner, and Texmenian Contractors, LLC d/b/a Red Carpet Cleaning, a service provider, over make-ready services. Pioneer challenged the validity of 46 invoices and a mechanic's lien filed by Red Carpet. The trial court ruled in favor of Red Carpet, awarding damages, lien foreclosure, and attorney's fees. On appeal, the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding the validity of the debt for services rendered, the breach of contract/sworn account claim, and the foreclosure of the mechanic's lien, finding sufficient evidence of performance and substantial compliance with lien perfection requirements. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the award of attorney's fees, ruling that Red Carpet failed to segregate recoverable fees from unrecoverable ones and that the evidence for contingent appellate attorney's fees was insufficient.

Contract DisputeSworn Account ClaimBreach of ContractMechanic's LienLien ForeclosureAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceStatutory InterpretationLimited Liability Company
References
63
Case No. 01-14-00779-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2014

Pointe West Center, LLC v. It's Alive, Inc. and Shamil Qureshi, Individually, and as Agent For, It's Alive, Inc.

This document is a brief filed by It's Alive, Inc. and Shamil Qureshi (Cross-Appellants) in an appeal against Pointe West Center, LLC (Appellant) regarding a judgment from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1, Harris County, Texas. Pointe West Center, LLC, as landlord, originally sued It's Alive, Inc., as tenant, and Shamil Qureshi, as guarantor, for breach of a commercial lease, conversion, and trespass to chattels. The tenant also filed a counterclaim for the landlord's failure to return a security deposit. The jury found in favor of the landlord on the primary claims, awarding $15,000 for repair costs, while denying other damages for both parties and the tenant's counterclaim. The Cross-Appellants argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion for instructed verdict because there was no legally sufficient evidence to support the damages award for reasonable and necessary repair costs.

Commercial Lease DisputeProperty DamageBreach of ContractConversionTrespass to ChattelsAppellate BriefEvidentiary SufficiencyDamages CalculationJury Verdict ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2002

People v. Fernandez

The defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree after a jury trial in Bionx County. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and concurrent sentences of six years and one year, respectively. The verdict was upheld against the weight of the evidence, as the jury properly rejected the defendant's justification defense, finding his use of force unjustified despite the complainant reaching for the knife first. The court noted that the defendant inflicted severe injuries while remaining uninjured and was still advancing with a knife on the unarmed, retreating complainant when police arrived. Additionally, the court properly redacted a reference to past drug use from the complainant's medical triage sheet due to a lack of proper foundation and irrelevance to treatment. The defendant's ability to cross-examine on the complainant's drug use at the time of the incident was not precluded.

Criminal LawAssault Second DegreeCriminal Possession of a WeaponJustification DefenseSelf-DefenseWeight of EvidenceCredibility DeterminationMedical Records RedactionHearsay RuleCross-Examination
References
2
Case No. 14-01-01143-CR and 14-01-01144-CR (Trial Court Cause Nos. 862,982 and 827,178)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2003

Edwards, Michael Jerome v. State

Appellant Michael Jerome Edwards was convicted of improper sexual activity with a person in custody and sexual assault. He was sentenced to two years for the first offense and ten years for sexual assault. The offenses occurred during a transport from Corpus Christi to Houston, where Edwards, a transportation agent, sexually assaulted the complainant. On appeal, Edwards challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding venue in Harris County and his employee status with the Harris County Jail, as well as the use of force in the sexual assault. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for all points and overruling the appellant's points of error.

Sexual AssaultImproper Sexual ActivityPerson in CustodyVenue DisputeEmployee StatusAgency LawPhysical ForceThreatened ForceJury ArgumentAppellate Review
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stokes v. Puckett

The appellees sued Dr. George N. Stokes for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a jury awarded them damages. Stokes appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault, the jury's damage award, and the admission of extraneous testimony. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings on emotional distress, assault, and damages, and overruled Stokes's points of error regarding extraneous testimony and counsel. However, the court sustained the appellees' cross-point regarding a remittitur, reinstating the original jury award for mental anguish.

Intentional infliction of emotional distressAssaultDamagesRemittiturLegal sufficiencyFactual sufficiencyEmployment lawHarassmentSexual harassmentMental anguish
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKay v. Point Shipping Corp.

The Marine Engineers Beneficial Association (Union) filed a motion to remand an action previously removed to federal court by Point Vail Company. The Union sought to confirm an arbitrator's award against Point Vail and Point Shipping Corporation regarding a collective bargaining agreement dispute. Point Vail opposed the remand, claiming Point Shipping was fraudulently joined, thus obviating its need to consent to removal. The District Court found no evidence of fraudulent joinder, noting that the Union sought relief against Point Shipping, whose potential liability was substantial despite an indemnity agreement. Consequently, the court ruled the removal petition defective due to Point Shipping's non-joinder and ordered the case remanded to the New York Supreme Court, while denying the Union's request for litigation fees.

Remand MotionFraudulent JoinderRemoval JurisdictionArbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal CourtState CourtIndemnity AgreementUnion Dispute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferreira v. Village of Kings Point

A plaintiff was injured when a trench collapsed during water main repairs. He initiated an action against the Village of Kings Point and Carlo Lizza & Sons Paving, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court correctly granted summary judgment to the Village on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, ruling that trench collapses are not within its ambit. However, the court erred by granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the Industrial Code provisions 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 and 23-4.4, relied upon by the plaintiff, were deemed sufficiently specific to support the claim. The case examines owner liability under Labor Law and the specificity required for Industrial Code violations.

Trench collapseLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-4.2Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-4.4Owner liabilitySummary judgmentNondelegable dutyConstruction site accidentExcavation safety
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,336 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