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. 03-02-00403-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2003

Randy Pretzer Scott Bossier Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. D/B/A Bossier Country v. the Motor Vehicle Board and Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation

This case involves an appeal concerning sanctions imposed by the Motor Vehicle Board against Randy Pretzer, Scott Bossier, and Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. (collectively "Bossier") for violations of the Texas Motor Vehicle Code, specifically fraudulent practices that led to $180,000 in civil penalties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's authority to sanction non-licensees for new vehicle sales violations under section 4.06(a)(5). However, it reversed the district court's finding of Board jurisdiction over used vehicle sales violations of section 4.06(a)(5) occurring before June 8, 1995. Additionally, the Court reversed the Board's power to prospectively limit Pretzer's employment in the motor vehicle industry. The case was remanded to the district court for redetermination of civil penalties consistent with the opinion, while Bossier's other arguments regarding notice, standard of proof, and constitutional challenges were overruled.

Motor Vehicle Code ViolationsFraudulent PracticesCivil PenaltiesStatutory AuthorityAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUsed Vehicle SalesNew Vehicle SalesLicense RevocationDue Process
References
49
Case No. 03-99-00265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2000

Ford Motor Company Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. And Daniel H. Foley, Jr./Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation v. Motor Vehicle Board, Texas Department of Transportation/Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. Daniel H. Foley, Jr. Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation And Ford Motor Company

This case involves an appeal from a district court judgment concerning an order from the Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation. The dispute originated from Ford's proposed termination of Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc.'s franchise due to alleged abuse of Ford's Competitive Price Assistance (CPA) program, where Metro misrepresented customer names to obtain higher discounts. The Board found good cause for termination but imposed a conditional termination remedy requiring the sale of Metro's dealership. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination for good cause, the refusal to transfer the dealership to Eileen Beard, and the denial of Ford's requested chargeback expenses. However, it reversed and remanded the district court's affirmation of the Board's conditional termination remedy, finding it unlawful.

Franchise TerminationDealer FraudCPA Program AbuseStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawMotor Vehicle BoardEquitable EstoppelGood Cause TerminationAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
33
Case No. 03-07-00509-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2009

in Re General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Division and Austin Chevrolet, Inc. D/B/A Munday Chevrolet/Geo

This original proceeding involves the district court's plenary power over a suit inadvertently dismissed for want of prosecution while abated. The underlying suit by Landmark against General Motors and Austin Chevrolet was abated in 2001. In 2003, the district court inadvertently dismissed the suit. In 2007, the trial court vacated the dismissal and reinstated the suit. Relators General Motors and Austin Chevrolet sought a writ of mandamus, arguing the 2007 order was void because it was issued after the expiration of the district court's plenary power. The Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ, holding that the 2003 dismissal was not void, and thus the district court's plenary power had expired, making the 2007 order void.

mandamusplenary powerdismissal for want of prosecutionabatementsubject-matter jurisdictionvoid ordersjudicial discretionadministrative remediesTexas appellate procedurecivil procedure
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pretzer v. Motor Vehicle Board

This case concerns an appeal by Randy Pretzer, Scott Bossier, and Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. d/b/a Bossier Country (collectively, "Bossier") against sanctions imposed by the Motor Vehicle Board and Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation ("Board"). The Board had imposed civil penalties for violations of sections 4.06(a)(5) and 4.06(a)(6) of the Texas Motor Vehicle Code. The district court affirmed in part, overruled in part, and reversed and remanded in part the Board's final order. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment in part, reversed and rendered in part concerning the Board's power to bar Pretzer from the motor vehicle industry, and remanded the cause for further proceedings regarding the redetermination of civil penalties based on the correct jurisdictional scope of section 4.06(a)(5) for used vehicle sales before June 8, 1995.

Texas Motor Vehicle CodeStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawCivil PenaltiesFraudulent PracticesDealer LicensingNon-licensee SanctionsUsed Vehicle SalesSubstantial Evidence ReviewEqual Protection
References
50
Case No. 03-21-00239-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

Star Houston, Inc.// Cross-Appellant,Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC, and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles// Star Houston, Inc., and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

Star Houston, Inc. and Volvo Car USA, LLC appealed a Final Order of the Motor Vehicle Board. The administrative proceeding involved Star protesting Volvo's termination of its franchise and alleging violations of Occupations Code chapter 2301 by Volvo's Dealer Incentive Programs. Star and Volvo petitioned for judicial review, which was subsequently removed to the Court of Appeals. The court rejected the Board's standing challenge against Volvo's cross-appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusions that Volvo's CSI and SSI programs violated Occupations Code sections 2301.467(a)(1) and 2301.468, upholding that they required adherence to unreasonable sales/service standards and treated dealers unfairly. Additionally, the court rejected Star's claims that other incentive programs violated various statutory provisions. Ultimately, the Motor Vehicle Board's Final Order was affirmed.

Texas Court of AppealsMotor Vehicle BoardFranchise TerminationDealer Incentive ProgramsOccupations CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandingSubstantial Evidence RuleCustomer Satisfaction Index (CSI)
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tikhonova v. Ford Motor Co.

Plaintiff Svetlana Tikhonova suffered catastrophic injuries in a car accident involving a vehicle driven by Alexey Konovalov, a Russian diplomat immune from direct suit. Tikhonova subsequently filed a claim against Ford Motor Credit Company, the registered owner, and Ford Motor Company, the long-term lessee of the vehicle, under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1) for vicarious liability. The defendants argued that the driver's diplomatic immunity should shield them from liability, citing precedents from workers' compensation and volunteer firefighter cases. However, the court rejected this argument, asserting that there is no public policy rationale or statutory scheme that warrants extending diplomatic immunity to unrelated third parties. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the plaintiff's complaint.

Vicarious LiabilityDiplomatic ImmunityVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Car Owner LiabilityMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPublic PolicyWorkers' Compensation PrecedentFederal Drivers Act
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ely v. General Motors Corp.

Robin Ely, individually and as representative of the estate of Paul J. Ely, brought a wrongful death suit against Darrell Durham, Dow Oldsmobile Cadillac, Inc. (Dow), and General Motors after Paul Ely was killed by a vehicle driven by Durham, a Dow mechanic. The trial court granted summary judgment for General Motors, which Ely appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that General Motors was not vicariously liable for Durham's actions, as no agency relationship or joint enterprise was established due to a lack of control over the specific injury-causing act. Additionally, the court found no independent negligence on the part of General Motors, concluding there was no legal duty to ensure Dow's capitalization or implement a drug policy for Dow's employees, and that any alleged negligence in these areas was too remotely connected to Paul Ely's death. The claim of negligent marketing of a high-speed vehicle was also rejected due to the absence of a fiduciary duty.

Wrongful DeathVicarious LiabilityAgency RelationshipJoint EnterpriseSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimProximate CauseFranchisor-FranchiseeAutomotive IndustryProduct Liability
References
55
Case No. 03-97-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 1998

Young Chevrolet, Inc. v. the Texas Motor Vehicle Board Jupiter Chevrolet-Geo, Inc., D/B/A Newman Chevrolet And General Motors Corp.

Young Chevrolet, Inc. appealed the district court's judgment which affirmed a final order by the Texas Motor Vehicle Board. The Board had granted Jupiter Chevrolet-Geo, Inc.'s application to relocate its dealership, despite Young's protest. Young challenged the Board's jurisdiction, the dismissal of its independent due process claim, alleged procedural irregularities including ex parte communications, and the trial court's exclusion of evidence. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the Board had jurisdiction and its actions were lawful. The court also found no error in the dismissal of Young's due process claim and upheld the trial court's findings regarding the ex parte communications and the exclusion of evidence.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewEx Parte CommunicationDue ProcessAgency JurisdictionMotion for RehearingProcedural IrregularitiesAutomobile DealershipRelocation ApplicationStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. 01-0030
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2004

Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. v. Armstrong

Marian Armstrong sued Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. and Nissan North America, Inc. for products liability, negligence, gross negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, negligent misrepresentations, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices — Consumer Protection Act, after her 1986 Nissan 300ZX allegedly accelerated unintentionally, causing two accidents. The trial court admitted a database of 757 complaints, testimony from four other witnesses who experienced unintended acceleration, and several narrative reports, most of which were deemed hearsay or irrelevant by the Supreme Court of Texas. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the erroneous admission of this evidence likely led to an improper judgment, and remanded the case for a new trial. The Court also addressed and dismissed Armstrong's claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and DTPA violations, and remanded the exemplary damage claim.

Products LiabilityUnintended AccelerationHearsay EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceSimilar AccidentsEvidentiary ErrorRemand for New TrialExpert TestimonyAutomotive DefectsThrottle Cable
References
43
Case No. No. 01-0030
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2004

Nissan Motor Company Ltd. A/K/A Nissan Motor Company and Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A. v. Marian Armstrong

This products liability case involved Marian Armstrong's suit against Nissan, alleging that her 1986 Nissan 300ZX had a defect causing unintended acceleration and subsequent collisions. The trial court admitted extensive hearsay evidence of other alleged accidents and consumer complaints, which the Supreme Court of Texas deemed irrelevant and improperly admitted. The Supreme Court emphasized that product defects must be proven, not inferred from numerous unverified complaints, and that similar incidents require reasonably similar conditions for admissibility. Concluding that the erroneous admission of evidence likely led to an improper judgment, the Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial.

Products LiabilityUnintended AccelerationHearsay EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceExpert TestimonyDesign DefectNegligenceDamagesJury TrialAppellate Review
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 2,161 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