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. NO. 01-17-00203-CV, NO. 01-17-00206-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2018

Terri Porter Garcia v. the Travis Law Firm, P.C.

This case involved combined appeals from Terri Porter-Garcia and Allison E. Martin against their former employer, The Travis Law Firm, P.C. The appellants sought to dismiss claims of breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Theft Liability Act under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), arguing the claims stemmed from their wage disputes filed with the Texas Workforce Commission. The appellate court concluded the TCPA applied. It affirmed the trial courts' denial of dismissal for the breach of contract claims, finding the Law Firm established a prima facie case. However, the court reversed the denial of dismissal for the fraud and Theft Liability Act claims, as the Law Firm failed to provide clear and specific evidence for these allegations, and remanded those claims for dismissal.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Citizens Participation ActTCPAAnti-SLAPPBreach of ContractFraudTheft Liability ActWage DisputesEmployment LawAppellate Court
References
29
Case No. 05-18-00567-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2018

Darlene C. Amrhein v. Attorney Lennie F. Bollinger, and Worminton & Bollinger Law Firm

The appellant, Darlene C. Balistreri-Amrhein, filed a second docket statement in her appeal (No. 05-18-00567-CV) to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Dallas, Texas, from an original proceeding in Collin County. She appeals against multiple parties, including attorneys, law firms, banks, and judges, alleging legal malpractice, fraud, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and denial of due process and constitutional rights. The appellant claims the lower court lacked proper jurisdiction, made unlawful orders, and discriminated against her due to age, disabilities, and pro se litigant status. She specifically contests a "vexatious litigant" order, stating it is unsupported and unlawful, and seeks reversal of all adverse orders and costs. The appellant also highlights her severe medical conditions, including scheduled surgeries, and requests a medical stay or inactive docket status due to her incapacitation, citing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

AppealCivil ProcedureDue ProcessJudicial MisconductFraud on CourtVexatious LitigantMedical StayDisability RightsJurisdictionLegal Malpractice
References
16
Case No. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. 14-14-00731-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2015

Joseph Pressil v. Jason A. Gibson, Jason A. Gibson, P.C. D/B/A the Gibson Law Firm, Clifford D. Peel, II, and Andrew C. Smith's

Plaintiff Joseph Pressil brought a legal malpractice action against Jason A. Gibson, Jason A. Gibson, P.C. d/b/a The Gibson Law Firm, Clifford D. Peel, II, and Andrew C. Smith (lawyers). Pressil claimed the lawyers were negligent in handling a lawsuit against a fertility clinic for inseminating his former girlfriend, Anetria Burnette, with his sperm without his knowledge or consent, leading to the birth of twins. The trial court granted the lawyers' motion for summary judgment on the professional negligence claim, finding that Pressil could not recover damages from the fertility clinic as a matter of law, nor did the clinic owe him a duty. The lawyers argue for the appellate court to affirm the summary judgment, contending that Pressil cannot legally claim damages for raising healthy children or for mental anguish related to 'dealing with' the children's mother, and that the fertility clinic owed no duty to Pressil, a non-patient sperm donor, under Texas law.

Legal MalpracticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureDamagesWrongful BirthWrongful PregnancyDuty of CareFertility ClinicSperm DonorConsent
References
69
Case No. 2014-004069-2
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2014

Thuy Sunosky v. Allen A. Rad Law Firm

Thuy Sunosky appealed the trial court's dismissal of her legal malpractice claim against Allen A. Rad Law Firm. Sunosky initially sought $50,000 or less but increased her damages request to over $200,000 at trial. The trial court, a statutory county court with a jurisdictional limit of $200,000, dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. On appeal, Sunosky failed to challenge the jurisdictional grounds for the dismissal. The Second District of Texas Court of Appeals, therefore, affirmed the trial court's order of dismissal.

Legal MalpracticeJurisdictionStatutory County CourtAmount in ControversyPro Se LitigantDismissal of ClaimsAppealAffirmed DecisionCar Accident LitigationPersonal Injury Claim
References
6
Case No. 03-22-00254-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2022

Kirsten Hanna, Upside Up Properties, LLC, and Upside Up Ventures, Inc. v. M. Matthew Williams David Howell Law Firm of M. Matthew Williams Leighton, Williams, Adkinson, & Brown, PLLC And Leighton, Michaux, Adkinson, & Brown, PLLC

Kirsten Hanna and two LLCs appealed from a Travis County district court's orders dismissing their professional-negligence claims against their former attorneys, M. Matthew Williams, David Howell, and their associated law firms, under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The appellants also challenged the denial of their application for attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Hanna's claims and the denial of her attorney's fees request. However, the court reversed the award of attorney's fees to the Williams Parties, finding the evidence of reasonableness and necessity to be legally insufficient, and remanded that specific issue for redetermination.

Professional NegligenceLegal MalpracticeTexas Citizens Participation ActTCPAAttorney's FeesCommercial Speech ExemptionDTPA ExemptionAnti-Fracturing RuleSummary JudgmentJudicial Estoppel
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lake v. M.P.C. Trucking, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by the law firm Lewis & Stanzione after the Supreme Court denied their motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs, including Charles Lake. Plaintiffs initially sought damages for injuries but later expressed dissatisfaction with their attorney, Ralph Lewis, questioning his competence, veracity, and loyalty, despite also requesting his continued representation due to inability to find new counsel. Lewis sought to withdraw due to limited potential recovery and irreconcilable differences, exacerbated by plaintiffs rejecting settlement offers and insisting on trial against his advice. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting the law firm's motion for renewal and permitting them to withdraw as counsel, citing the deteriorated attorney-client relationship.

Attorney-Client RelationshipWithdrawal of CounselProfessional StandardsIrreconcilable DifferencesMotion to RenewAppellate ReviewGreene CountyWorkers' Compensation ClaimDamages LitigationSettlement Offers
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keene Corp. v. Williams Bailey & Wesner, L.L.P. (In Re Keene Corp.)

Keene Corporation, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, filed an adversary proceeding against 27 law firms, alleging they forced Keene into bankruptcy through fraudulent asbestos-related tort claims. The defendant law firms moved to withdraw the reference of this proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court, citing complex federal statutes (Antitrust and RICO) and a jury trial right. Defendant Levy Phillips & Konigsberg also appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss a civil contempt proceeding. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, denied the defendants' motion to withdraw the reference, deeming it premature, and dismissed LPK's interlocutory appeal, affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling on contempt. The court determined the adversary proceeding was non-core and did not warrant mandatory or discretionary withdrawal at this early stage.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingWithdrawal of ReferenceInterlocutory AppealCivil ContemptAntitrust LawRICO ActAsbestos LitigationFederal JurisdictionCore vs. Non-Core Proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Medrano v. Reyes

Armando and Elda Medrano sued Sam Reyes and the Hanna, Bentley & Hanna law firm for legal malpractice, alleging the firm failed to timely file a wrongful death suit for their son. The Hanna Firm withdrew from representation due to conflicts and claimed to have sent a withdrawal letter to the Medranos in January 1988, which the Medranos partially disputed regarding the 'third party case'. The Medranos subsequently hired new counsel. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Hanna Firm. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the Hanna Firm had provided reasonable notice of withdrawal, allowing sufficient time for the Medranos to secure other counsel before the statute of limitations expired on the third-party claim.

Legal MalpracticeAttorney WithdrawalProfessional ConductDuty to NotifyStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentTexas LawClient RepresentationConflict of InterestWorkers' Compensation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2004

Sojka v. 43 Wooster LLC

This case concerns an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a construction worker's injury. The defendant's insurance carrier, Indian Harbor Insurance Company, disclaimed coverage due to a delayed accident report. Subsequently, the law firm hired by the insurer to defend the defendant moved to withdraw as counsel. Initially, the motion was granted, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The court ruled that a motion to withdraw is an improper method to challenge an insurer's disclaimer of coverage, which should instead be resolved through a declaratory judgment action.

Motion to withdrawDisclaimer of coverageInsurance carrierDeclaratory judgment actionAttorney-client relationshipAppellate court reversalConstruction accidentProperty owner liabilityTimeliness of reportingLegal procedure
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 17,414 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