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. M2020-00964-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

Guidesoft, Inc. D/B/A Knowledge Services v. State Protest Committee, State of Tennessee

Knowledge Services challenged the award of a statewide contract to Covendis, protesting the Central Procurement Office's (CPO) dismissal of its bid due to an insufficient protest bond. The CPO, and subsequently the State Protest Committee, determined that Knowledge Services failed to submit the correct bond amount, calculated as 5% of the State's estimated maximum liability of $190,000,000 under Tenn. Code Ann. § 12-3-514(d)(2). The Chancery Court for Davidson County upheld this decision, emphasizing the statute's intent to protect the State's exposure and limiting judicial review to the record. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, concluding that the CPO correctly applied the protest bond statute and that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional evidence.

Bid protestGovernment contractsState procurementProtest bondStatutory interpretationAdministrative lawCommon law writ of certiorariJudicial reviewAbuse of discretionLegislative intent
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1963

Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc.

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a wrongful death action brought by Natalie Halepeska and her children against Callihan Interests, Inc., following the death of Dennis L. Halepeska in a gas well blowout. The trial court initially ruled for the plaintiffs, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, applying the "no duty" and "volenti non fit injuria" doctrines based on a standard that Halepeska "should have known" the danger. The Supreme Court clarified that these doctrines require actual knowledge and appreciation of the danger, or that the danger be so open and obvious that knowledge is legally charged. Finding the lower courts erred in their application of the "should have known" standard and noting the jury found Halepeska lacked full knowledge and appreciation, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration of the evidentiary sufficiency.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceContributory NegligencePremises LiabilityVolenti Non Fit InjuriaAssumed RiskGas Well BlowoutIndependent ContractorBusiness InviteeTexas Law
References
37
Case No. 11-07-00021-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2008

Michelle Hudson v. the University of Texas of the Permian Basin

Michelle Hudson sued The University of Texas of the Permian Basin (UTPB) for personal injuries after falling down stairs in a UTPB building, alleging a windstorm caused lighting issues. UTPB filed a plea to the jurisdiction and motions for summary judgment, which the trial court granted for the traditional motion. Hudson appealed, arguing the trial court erred in granting summary judgment given alleged fact issues regarding UTPB's knowledge of an unreasonably dangerous stairwell. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, noting Hudson waived complaints about other elements of her claim, such as whether the condition was unreasonably dangerous or her own knowledge of the condition. Therefore, her argument regarding UTPB's actual knowledge was not dispositive.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActPremises LiabilityLicenseeActual KnowledgeAppellate ProcedureWaiver
References
4
Case No. 2-05-453-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2006

City of Arlington, Texas v. Robert Moore and National American Insurance Company

The City of Arlington appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a case brought by Robert Moore. Moore, an electrician, sustained severe injuries from an electric shock at Vandergriff Park, a public recreational facility owned and operated by the City. He alleged the City had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition of the light pole that caused his injuries. The City asserted governmental immunity, claiming Moore failed to prove actual knowledge. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's ruling de novo, finding that Moore's pleadings and jurisdictional evidence created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the City's actual knowledge of the dangerous condition. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order denying the City's plea to the jurisdiction and remanded the case for further proceedings.

governmental immunityTexas Tort Claims Actpremises defectactual knowledgeinterlocutory appealplea to the jurisdictionpersonal injuryelectric shockrecreational facilitiesduty of care
References
21
Case No. 04-22-00453-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2023

City of Laredo v. Fausto Torres

The City of Laredo appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a case brought by Fausto Torres. Torres sued the City after a light pole fell on him, claiming negligence and gross negligence. The City argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Torres allegedly failed to comply with notice of claim requirements, the City did not own the property, and it lacked actual knowledge of the premises defect. The Fourth Court of Appeals determined that the light pole incident did not constitute a 'special defect' and therefore applied the 'premises defect' standard, which requires proof of the City's actual knowledge of the dangerous condition. Finding no evidence that the City had actual knowledge of the light pole's dangerous condition prior to the accident, the appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in denying the City's plea to the jurisdiction. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order, rendered judgment granting the City's plea to the jurisdiction, and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Plea to the jurisdictionGovernmental immunityActual knowledgePremises defectSpecial defectTexas Tort Claims ActNotice of claimWorker's compensationLamp post fallNegligence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1997

Exxon Corp. v. Garza

Omar Garza sued Exxon Corporation for a knee injury sustained when he slipped while fleeing a transformer fire on Exxon's Yates Lease. Garza, a truck driver, believed the fire combined with gas fumes posed an explosion risk. The jury found Exxon liable for negligence and premises liability, awarding $494,385. On appeal, the court addressed Exxon's claim that an earlier judgment was final and that the evidence was insufficient to prove Exxon's knowledge of the dangerous condition. The appellate court determined the January 21, 1997, judgment was the final, appealable one. It then reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that Exxon had actual or constructive knowledge of the unreasonably dangerous condition on the lease, resulting in a take-nothing judgment for Garza.

Premises LiabilityNegligenceContributory NegligenceLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceActual KnowledgeConstructive KnowledgeTransformer FireGas Lease SafetyIndependent Contractor LiabilityFinal Judgment Rule
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Milner v. Country Developers, Inc.

The Special Disability Fund appealed decisions by the Workmen’s Compensation Board which imposed liability on the Fund for a claimant's injuries. The Board found that the employer, Country Developers, continued to employ the claimant, a carpenter, with knowledge of his pre-existing permanent physical impairment, triggering liability under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The claimant suffered a fracture of the nose and a hip dislocation in 1964, having a history of three ruptured disc surgeries and other conditions. The appeal centered on whether the employer had sufficient knowledge of the claimant’s permanent condition. Testimony from the employer’s foreman, Mr. Pahlck, indicated awareness of the claimant's back issues, including wearing a back brace and being favored by co-workers. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, reiterating that employer knowledge is a question of fact for the Board, and its findings, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundEmployer LiabilityPre-existing Permanent ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeSubstantial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilityFracture of NoseHip DislocationRuptured Discs
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Francis Ione Lethcoe v. Ricky Ray Holden, et ux

This wrongful death case originated from Francis lone Lethcoe suing the co-owners of a property after her husband, Vernon Lethcoe, died from injuries sustained when the roof collapsed at his workplace, Bain and Holden Tire Company, Inc. The plaintiff argued several exceptions to landlord non-liability, including pre-existing dangerous conditions, the property's unsuitability for its leased purpose, negligent repairs by an owner, retained control by the owners, and a duty to ensure structural integrity due to inherently dangerous activity. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment granted to the defendants, finding the employer's knowledge of the dangerous condition (accumulated rubber dust on the roof) was co-extensive with or greater than the owners'. The court also concluded that any cleaning efforts by Ricky Ray Holden, a co-owner and president of the employer, were likely in his capacity as president, not as an owner retaining control.

Wrongful DeathLandlord LiabilityPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRoof CollapseDangerous ConditionLease AgreementEmployer ResponsibilityProperty Ownership
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bard v. Jahnke

The case concerns Larry Bard, a carpenter, who was injured by a bull at Hemlock Valley Farms owned by Reinhardt Jahnke while performing work for John Timer. Bard and his wife sued Jahnke and Timer, alleging strict liability and negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, ruling that liability for domestic animal harm requires proof of the owner's prior knowledge of the animal's vicious propensities, which was absent for the bull Fred. The court rejected the argument that a bull's general dangerousness constitutes such knowledge or supports a separate negligence claim. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing that an owner's liability for harm caused by a domestic animal is solely determined by the established vicious propensity rule.

Animal Liability LawVicious Propensity DoctrineStrict Liability ClaimsNegligence ActionsDomestic Animal AttacksFarm SafetyPersonal Injury LitigationSummary Judgment AppealAppellate Court RulingsCommon Law Interpretation
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,441 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