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. 02-09-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2011

Metro A, LLC, Sun Holdings, LLC, POP Restaurants, LLC, Golden Restaurants, Inc., Firebrand Properties, LP, Corral Group, LP, Kansas Corral, LLC, Sunny Corral Management, LLC, Guillermo Perales, Frys Management, LLC v. Jessica Polley

This is an appeal from a default judgment against Appellants (Metro A, LLC, Sun Holdings, LLC, and others) and in favor of Appellee Jessica Polley. Polley had previously sued Metro Restaurants, LLC for sexual assault by an employee. In a later lawsuit, Polley sued the Appellants, alleging they were jointly and severally liable for Metro Restaurants' negligence and engaged in fraudulent transfers to prevent her from collecting a 2007 judgment against Metro Restaurants. Appellants appeal the default judgment on several grounds, including improper service, insufficient pleading, lack of evidence, and lack of notice for the default proceeding. They also challenge the denial of their motion for new trial, citing a calendaring mistake and a belief that a bankruptcy stay applied. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Appellants judicially admitted proper service, Polley's pleading was sufficient, and Appellants' excuses for not filing an answer were not credible.

Default judgmentAppealService of processMeritorious defenseCraddock factorsJudicial admissionNegligenceJoint and several liabilityBankruptcy stayCalendaring error
References
30
Case No. 10-15-00255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2015

Asset, Consulting Experts, LLC, and Michael C. Evans v. Jonathan Sistrunk

This document is a Docketing Statement (Civil) filed in the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas, on August 12, 2015. It pertains to an appeal initiated by Asset, Consulting Experts, LLC and Michael C. Evans against Jonathan Sistrunk. The statement outlines details of a default judgment signed on May 8, 2015, which awarded $14,000.00 in actual damages, $40,000.00 in punitive damages, and $19,000.00 in attorney's fees. The appellants intend to challenge the judgment on grounds including failure to serve process, and the record's support for actual, exemplary, and attorney's fees, as well as post-judgment interest. The document also includes information regarding legal representation, the trial court (170th Judicial District Court, McLennan County, Texas), and a recommendation for mediation.

Default JudgmentAppealService of ProcessDamagesAttorney's FeesPost-Judgment InterestTexas LawCivil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJurisdiction
References
0
Case No. 05-20-00936-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2022

Diana Convenience, LLC, HQ Food, Inc., Hajar Convenience, LLC, Shark Phones, LLC, and AMK Convenience, LLC v. Dollar ATM, LLC

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Texas at Dallas affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment from Collin County. Appellants, Diana Convenience, LLC, et al., appealed a judgment awarding damages to Dollar ATM, LLC for breach of contract, specifically challenging pre-trial orders imposing discovery sanctions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's "death penalty sanctions" against the appellants, finding that their repeated failure to comply with discovery requests and resistance to providing material evidence justified the severe sanctions, establishing that the signatories had authority and prohibiting them from contesting ATM revenue. However, the court vacated a prior award of $1,050 in attorney's fees, ruling it was not supported by legally sufficient evidence of reasonableness.

Discovery SanctionsBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionDue ProcessTexas Civil ProcedureMemorandum OpinionDeath Penalty SanctionsMotion to Compel
References
15
Case No. 01-21-00089-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2022

TASF, LLC D/B/A Turnaround Special Forces, LLC Eddie Garza, Clint Dewispelaera, Alex Castillo and John Ruff v. Turn2 Specilaty Companies, LLC and Turn2 Workforce Solutions, LLC

The First District of Texas Court of Appeals reviewed a temporary injunction issued against TASF, LLC, and its principals for allegedly misappropriating trade secrets from Turn2 Specialty Companies, LLC and Turn2 Workforce Solutions, LLC. The misappropriated information included confidential base wage rates, billing rates, per diem amounts, contract terms, and vendor lists. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the information deserved trade secret protection and that Turn2 took reasonable steps to maintain secrecy. The court found one issue moot due to the expiration of a provision and modified the injunction to specifically define the protected trade secrets, ensuring clarity for the enjoined parties.

Trade SecretsTemporary InjunctionMisappropriationConfidential InformationProprietary InformationBusiness PracticesContract TermsBilling RatesVendor ListsBreach of Fiduciary Duty
References
27
Case No. 08-18-00175-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2023

TVO Cobblestone, LLC, Windy Cities Cobblestone, LLC, KLV Trust and Wayne Vandenburg v. ASI Capital, LLC

Appellants (TVO Cobblestone, LLC; Windy Cities Cobblestone, LLC; KLV Trust; and Wayne Vandenburg) appealed the trial court’s entry of default judgment against Windy Cities, KLV, and Wayne Vandenburg, as well as its order granting Appellee ASI Capital, LLC’s summary judgment against TVO. The original lawsuit by ASI Capital, LLC involved claims related to a $375,000 promissory note, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and conspiracy against various entities and individuals. Appellants contended that the default judgment was granted without proper notice and that the denial of their motion for a new trial was an abuse of discretion, satisfying the Craddock test elements. The appellate court found that Appellants’ failure to answer was not intentional or consciously indifferent and that they presented meritorious defenses. Additionally, the court determined that TVO raised a fact issue regarding the authority of Russell Vandenburg to bind TVO to the promissory note and whether TVO received the loaned funds. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed both the default judgment and the summary judgment orders, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Default JudgmentSummary JudgmentCraddock TestMeritorious DefenseAgency LawApparent AuthorityBreach of ContractFraudConspiracyFraudulent Transfer
References
32
Case No. 05-23-01126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2024

Culberson Midstream Equity, LLC, Moontower Resources Gathering, LLC and Culberson Midstream LLC v. Energy Transfer LP

Culberson Midstream Equity, LLC, Moontower Resources Gathering, LLC, and Culberson Midstream LLC (collectively Culberson) sought permission to appeal an interlocutory order denying their motion for summary judgment on Energy Transfer LP's fraud claims, which stemmed from a dispute over a gas gathering contract. The Fifth District Court of Appeals at Dallas denied the petition. The court found that Culberson failed to establish that the interlocutory order involved a controlling question of law with a substantial ground for difference of opinion, a requirement for permissive appeals. The court concluded that existing case law adequately addresses issues like disclaimers of reliance, justifiable reliance, and red flags in fraud claims, thus providing sufficient guidance without requiring a permissive appeal.

Permissive AppealInterlocutory OrderSummary JudgmentFraud ClaimsGas Gathering ContractJustifiable RelianceDisclaimer of RelianceControlling Question of LawSubstantial Ground for Difference of OpinionTexas Court of Appeals
References
10
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. 06-21-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2022

Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC, UATP Management, LLC, Zoya Enterprises, Ltd., and UA Holdings, LLC v. Hamza Lakhani

Hamza Lakhani, an appellee, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC and several other entities (appellants) after suffering injuries at an adventure park. The appellants sought to compel arbitration based on a release signed by Lakhani. The trial court denied this motion. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial for UATP, Zoya, and UA, concluding no valid arbitration agreement existed between them and Lakhani. However, the court found the arbitration agreement enforceable against Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC, but severed a provision that prohibited the award of punitive or exemplary damages, deeming it unconscionable. The case was subsequently reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to compel arbitration for Lakhani's claims against Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC, consistent with the modified agreement.

ArbitrationPersonal InjuryContract LawUnconscionabilityPunitive DamagesExemplary DamagesSeverability ClauseFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Gross NegligenceAppellate Decision
References
42
Case No. 02-24-00248-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

Granbury SNF LLC D/B/A Granbury Rehab & Nursing, Advanced HCS LLC D/B/A Advanced Healthcare Solutions, and Granbury Rehab & Nursing GS LLC v. Natalie Jackson

Natalie Jackson sued Granbury SNF LLC, Advanced HCS LLC, and Granbury Rehab & Nursing GS LLC for unlawful retaliation after reporting resident abuse. A jury found in Jackson's favor, awarding compensatory and exemplary damages. On appeal, the Appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence for Granbury GS's involvement, mental anguish damages, exemplary damages for reprehensible conduct, and the individual capping of punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, largely finding that Appellants failed to preserve most issues. Specifically, the court affirmed the exemplary damages against Granbury GS and the award of contingent appellate attorney's fees, citing sufficient evidence of malice and proper calculation methods for fees.

Unlawful RetaliationAbuse ReportingExemplary DamagesMental Anguish DamagesLegal SufficiencyAppellate Attorney's FeesPreservation of ErrorVice-Principal DoctrineTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Health & Safety Code
References
47
Case No. 18-0656
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2019

Creative Oil & Gas Operating, Llc v. Lona Hills Ranch, Llc

This case concerns the application of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) to counterclaims in an oil and gas lease dispute. Petitioners, Creative Oil & Gas, LLC and Creative Oil & Gas Operating, LLC, filed counterclaims against Respondent, Lona Hills Ranch, LLC, alleging false communications to third parties about lease termination and breach of contract by initiating litigation without proper notice. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed in part and reversed in part the appellate court's judgment. The Court ruled that private business communications about a single well's production were not matters of public concern under the TCPA's free speech provision. However, the Operator's counterclaim regarding the Ranch's legal filings fell under the TCPA's right to petition but was dismissed as the Operator was not a party to the lease.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAAnti-SLAPPOil and GasLease DisputeCounterclaimsFree SpeechRight to PetitionPublic ConcernPrivate Communications
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 3,209 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