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. 13-09-00213-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2010

Unique Staff Leasing, LLC and Unique Staff Leasing I, Ltd. v. Richard Onder

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in a breach of contract dispute between Unique Staff Leasing, LLC, and Unique Staff Leasing I, Ltd. (Appellants) and Richard Onder (Appellee). The core of the dispute was an 'Independent Contractor and Commission Agreement' and prior oral agreements regarding commission payments. Unique argued that the agreements were unenforceable due to the statute of frauds and that Onder committed a prior material breach. The court rejected Unique's arguments, finding that the written agreement was not subject to the statute of frauds as its terms allowed performance within one year and that the jury's implicit finding of no material breach by Onder was reasonable. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, as modified, which awarded Onder $52,025.11 in lost commissions and additional attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractStatute of FraudsElectronic AgreementIndependent ContractorCommission AgreementJury VerdictLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyContract InterpretationOral Agreement
References
73
Case No. 02-14-00303-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2015

Titan Operating, LLC v. Marcus C. Marsden, Jr. and Laura B. Marsden

The case involves Titan Operating, LLC appealing a trial court's judgment favoring Marcus C. Marsden, Jr. and Laura B. Marsden in a nuisance suit. The Marsdens claimed Titan's oil and gas drilling operations near their home constituted a nuisance. However, the Marsdens had previously signed an oil and gas lease and an easement agreement with Titan (or its predecessors), receiving bonus payments and ongoing royalties. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, reversed the trial court's decision, applying the doctrine of quasi-estoppel. The court ruled that it was unconscionable for the Marsdens to accept financial benefits from transactions authorizing drilling operations while simultaneously suing for nuisance based on the effects of those same operations. Consequently, the appellate court rendered judgment that the Marsdens take nothing.

Oil and Gas LawNuisanceQuasi-EstoppelProperty RightsMineral RightsLease AgreementEasementAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureLandowner Rights
References
24
Case No. 04-13-00201-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2014

Bank of America, N.A. as Trustee of Bettye Baker Brown Trust, U/w, F/B/O William David Deiss, Bettye Baker Brown Trust U/w, F/B/O Diane Elizabeth Mysliweic, Bettye Baker Brown Trust U/W/, F/B/O Paula Jane Roberts, Dorothy Baker Shaw 1966 Trust, Baker E. v. Prize Energy Resources, L.P., Prize Operating Company, Gruy Petroleum Management Company N/K/A Cimarex Energy Co. of Colorado, Magnum Hunter Resources, Inc., Cimarex Energy Co., Hunter Gas Gathering, Inc., Pat R. Rutherford Jr., Michael G. Rutherford, Rut

This case, heard by the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, addresses a dispute over the termination of an oil, gas, and mineral lease and a joint operating agreement (JOA) in McMullen County. Appellants, led by Bank of America as trustee, contested a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Appellees, Prize Energy Resources, concerning the alleged fraudulent inducement of a ratification agreement. The core issues involved the Bank's claims of waiver, ratification, quasi-estoppel, and adverse possession, all stemming from the belief that the Baker Lease terminated due to a cessation of production. The appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the Bank's knowledge of fraud and its intent to waive its claims, as well as the applicability of quasi-estoppel and adverse possession. Consequently, the trial court's grant of summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Oil and gas leaseJoint operating agreementMineral interestsLease terminationFraudulent inducementRatificationWaiverQuasi-estoppelAdverse possessionSummary judgment
References
55
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bridges v. Andrews Transport, Inc.

William Lloyd Bridges, a truck driver and owner, sued Andrews Transport, Inc. and Andrews Leasing, Inc. for fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract, among other claims. Bridges operated under a dual relationship with Andrews Transport: as an employee and as a lessor of his truck via an Equipment Lease Agreement. The core dispute revolved around Andrews' deductions from Bridges' lease payments for employer-mandated taxes and workers' compensation. Bridges argued these deductions were illegal and void the lease agreement, violating public policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for Andrews. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, citing Hathcock v. Acme Truck Lines, Inc. and reasoning that the deductions from lease payments, rather than wages, by an employer to a lessor (even if the same individual) do not contravene federal or state laws or public policy.

FraudConversionRestitutionUnjust EnrichmentBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentEquipment Lease AgreementEmployment AgreementLessor-Lessee RelationshipEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
3
Case No. 06-15-00044-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2014

Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, LP v. Petromax Operating Co., Inc., Woodbine Acquisition, LLC, N/K/A MD America Energy, LLC, Petro Texas, LLC, CH4 Energy II, LLC, and Texcal Energy South Texas, LP

This case involves an oil and gas dispute concerning the proper interpretation of a 1994 Assignment, which determines the continuing effect of a 1975 Area of Mutual Interest (AMI) agreement. Appellant, Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP, argues its ownership interest in certain leases within the AMI was not fully conveyed by the 1994 Assignment, meaning the AMI remains in effect. Appellees, including PetroMax Operating Co., Inc. and Woodbine Acquisition, LLC, contend the AMI terminated years ago due to the 1994 Assignment conveying all of Southland's interest in the relevant leases. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Appellees, ruling that Burlington owns no interest in the AMI and that the AMI provision has terminated, while denying Burlington's motion for partial summary judgment.

Oil and Gas DisputeArea of Mutual InterestAMI AgreementContract Interpretation1994 AssignmentMineral RightsLeasehold InterestSummary JudgmentTexas Court of AppealsAppellate Brief
References
28
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01454
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2017

Sokolovic v. Throgs Neck Operating Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning hold harmless and indemnity agreements. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Vision Healthcare Services' motion to enforce a hold harmless agreement and Throgs Neck Operating Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim against Vision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed these orders. The court held that the plaintiff was obligated to hold Vision harmless from Throgs Neck's indemnification claim due to a hold harmless agreement executed during settlement. It further clarified that a nurse provided by Vision to Throgs Neck remained Vision's general employee, thereby triggering Vision's contractual indemnity obligation, despite being considered a special employee of Throgs Neck for the purpose of Throgs Neck's liability to the plaintiff.

hold harmless agreementcontractual indemnityspecial employeegeneral employeestaffing agreementsettlement agreementsummary judgmentnegligenceagency liabilityappellate review
References
3
Case No. 07-15-00297-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2015

Dimock Operating Company, and Joe W. Dimock, D/B/A Dimock Petroleum v. Sutherland Energy Co., LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning a disputed oil and gas farmout agreement and its associated operating agreement. Appellant Dimock Operating Company challenges the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction in favor of Appellee Sutherland Energy Co., LLC, and its denial of Dimock's own application for a temporary injunction. The core dispute revolves around alleged breaches of contract by Sutherland, including unauthorized charges exceeding $2.4 million for "land" and "seismic" costs and the inclusion of litigation expenses as operating costs, which Dimock claims improperly delayed the "project payout" of the Hamrick #3 well. Dimock argues that the Hamrick #3 well reached payout in March 2014, entitling it to a 51% working interest. Dimock also contends that the trial court erroneously rewrote the contract's term from three years to an indefinite period and issued an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.

Oil and GasFarmout AgreementOperating AgreementTemporary InjunctionBreach of ContractProject PayoutSeismic ExplorationLand CostsLitigation ExpensesStatute of Frauds
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

EXLP Leasing, LLC v. Galveston Cent. Appraisal Dist.

The case concerns a dispute between EXLP Leasing, LLC (EXLP) and the Galveston County appraisal district regarding the constitutional validity of a statutory formula for taxing leased natural-gas compressors and the proper taxable situs for this equipment. Galveston County challenged the Texas Tax Code provisions, arguing they undervalued the compressors at a "minute fraction" of their market value, violating constitutional requirements for "equal and uniform" taxation. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the county failed to rebut the strong presumption of constitutionality, clarifying that the legislature is not constitutionally mandated to base property valuation solely on market value. Furthermore, the Court determined that Washington County, where EXLP maintains its inventory and business operations, is the correct taxable situs, establishing a comprehensive statutory scheme that supersedes general situs rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered a decision against Galveston County on both issues.

Property TaxTexas Tax CodeConstitutional LawValuation MethodTaxable SitusHeavy EquipmentNatural Gas CompressorsLegislative DiscretionEqual and Uniform TaxationMarket Value
References
60
Case No. No. 08-13-00348-CV (TC#12-09-802)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2015

EXLP Leasing LLC and EES Leasing LLC v. Loving County Appraisal District

This ad-valorem tax case concerns the taxation of natural gas pipeline compressor packages. Appellants, EXLP Leasing LLC and EES Leasing LLC, lease these compressor packages. The trial court initially ruled that the packages qualified as heavy equipment but found the taxable situs in Loving County and deemed the statutory formulas for market value and tax (Texas Tax Code Sections 23.1241 and 23.1242) unconstitutional as applied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed the constitutionality of these statutes and the determination of taxable situs. The appellate court reversed the trial court's finding on constitutionality, holding that the statutes are not unconstitutional as applied, and affirmed the trial court's ruling that the taxable situs was indeed in Loving County.

Ad Valorem TaxHeavy EquipmentTaxation LawMarket Value AssessmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawTaxable SitusTexas Tax CodeAppraisal DistrictProperty Tax
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 5,468 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