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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Lee

This is an appeal in a divorce case concerning Berta Margarita de Los Rios Lee (Wife) and Daniel Mark Lee (Husband). The wife was awarded custody of their minor son, William Alvaro Lee, after filing for divorce in Shelby County Chancery Court on grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. The husband appealed the trial court's decision regarding custody, division of a retirement account, and attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's rulings on custody, division of marital property including retirement benefits, and the award of attorney fees to the wife. The court found that the husband waived several constitutional and due process arguments by not raising them at the trial court level. It also upheld the trial court's exercise of judicial discretion in issuing injunctions, temporary custody, and visitation orders. The case was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of visitation arrangements due to a change in the child's school schedule.

DivorceChild CustodyVisitation RightsMarital Property DivisionAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionParental RightsSpousal AbuseDue Process
References
30
Case No. 14-15-00787-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2015

Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. v. Tyler Lee and Leigh Ann Lee, Individually and as Next Friend of Sydney Rose Lee, Minor

This civil appeal originates from a personal injury jury trial. The appellant, Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc., is appealing a trial court judgment that awarded the appellees, Tyler Lee and Leigh Ann Lee, actual damages of $35,443,006.00 and punitive damages of $8,500,000.00. Key issues to be raised on appeal include the Workers' Compensation bar, election of remedies, intentional injury exception, and gross negligence, with de novo and sufficiency of the evidence as applicable standards for review.

Personal InjuryJury TrialMoney JudgmentAppellate LawWorkers' Compensation BarElection of RemediesIntentional Injury ExceptionGross NegligenceTexas Court of AppealsDamages Awarded
References
1
Case No. 4:87-CV-097-A
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1992

Lee Ex Rel. Estate of Lee v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Winston Lee sued Delta Air Lines for the wrongful death of his wife, Alyson Lee, a flight attendant who died in a 1985 plane crash in Texas. Lee alleged negligence and sought actual and exemplary damages. Delta moved for summary judgment, asserting that Florida's Workers' Compensation Law, which covered Alyson Lee as a Florida-based employee, provided the exclusive remedy. The court, applying Texas choice-of-law rules, determined that Florida had the most significant relationship to the employer-employee relationship and the specific issue of workers' compensation immunity. Finding that Florida's exclusive remedy provision did not violate Texas public policy, the court granted Delta's motion for summary judgment, denying plaintiff's claims and dismissing the action.

Workers' CompensationChoice of LawConflict of LawsSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyAirplane CrashFlorida LawTexas LawEmployment RelationshipWrongful Death
References
21
Case No. 09-07-370 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2008

Alex Wang and Serena Wang v. Wen-Ning Lee, Pao-Yu Lin and Eric C. Lee

The Lees sued the Wangs for fraud committed during the sale of two Baskin-Robbins franchises. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the Lees, awarding them $205,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against Alex Wang due to a lack of legal sufficiency of the evidence. While affirming that there was sufficient evidence of fraud by Serena Wang, the court found the damages award factually insufficient, as the Lees did not prove the value of what they actually received. Consequently, the case was remanded for a new trial specifically on the fraud claims against Serena Wang, while Alex Wang was absolved.

fraudmisrepresentationfranchise agreementdetrimental reliancedamageslegal sufficiencyfactual sufficiencycontract disputebusiness saleappellate review
References
6
Case No. 14-17-00883-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2019

Charles Lee Cunningham, III, and Karan Lozano v. Christi Lee Waymire, and Gary Michael Waymire, Individually and as Next Friend of Minor Children MC and MC2

This is an interlocutory appeal concerning a lawsuit filed by Christi Lee Waymire and Gary Michael Waymire against Charles Lee Cunningham III and Karan Lozano. The Waymires sued for libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and conspiracy after Cunningham and Lozano made false reports to Child Protective Services (CPS) and other individuals, alleging child molestation and drug abuse. The appellate court applied the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA) and reviewed the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding some of the Waymires' claims while dismissing others, specifically Christi's libel claim against Cunningham and all negligence claims. The court further elaborated on the application of the TCPA and various defamation defenses, including the Defamation Mitigation Act, ultimately declining to dismiss claims solely based on DMA non-compliance.

Child Abuse AllegationsDefamationLibelIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligenceCivil ConspiracyTexas Citizens' Participation Act (TCPA)Anti-SLAPP LawInterlocutory AppealFamily Dispute
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wang v. Wen-Ning Lee

Wen-Ning Lee, Pao-Yu Lin, and Eric C. Lee sued Alex and Serena Wang for fraud related to the sale of Baskin-Robbins stores. The Lees believed they purchased full ownership, including franchises and leases, but Serena Wang held these rights and failed to disclose her inability to transfer them. Serena made misrepresentations, extracted additional payments, and eventually caused the stores' closure by refusing to assign the leases. The court found sufficient evidence of fraud against Serena Wang but reversed the judgment against Alex Wang due to insufficient evidence. The original damages award of $205,000 was deemed factually insufficient, leading to a partial reversal and a remand for a new trial on damages against Serena Wang.

FraudBusiness SaleMisrepresentationFranchise AgreementDetrimental RelianceDamagesFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyContract DisputeIce Cream King Inc.
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2001

Lee v. Lee

This corrected opinion addresses an appeal from a probate case concerning the removal of an executor/trustee, Ronald Lee, and damages for breaches of fiduciary duty and excessive executor fees. The appellants, Susan Lee and Susan Gibson, challenged the trial court's judgment. The appeals court found the trial court erred in reducing the jury's finding of excessive executor fees, in not removing Ronald Lee as trustee, and in not requiring Ronald Lee to reimburse the estate for appellants' attorney's fees. The court reversed these portions of the judgment, increasing the award for excessive fees to $2,198,355.00, ordering Ronald Lee's removal as trustee, and mandating reimbursement of appellants' attorney's fees with prejudgment and postjudgment interest. The remainder of the trial court's judgment was affirmed, including the refusal to remove Ronald Lee as executor.

Probate LawFiduciary DutyExecutor MisconductTrustee RemovalEstate AdministrationExcessive FeesTax Benefits RulePrejudgment InterestAppellate ReviewBreach of Duty
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Glessing

Plaintiff William Lee initiated a lawsuit against Charles Glessing and Palantine Nursing Home, alleging gender and disability discrimination under Title VII, ADA, and New York State Human Rights Law, along with claims of retaliation. Lee, a physical therapist, contended he endured sexual harassment from female co-workers and was wrongfully terminated due to his gender, a mental disability, and in response to his complaints. Defendants sought summary judgment, asserting non-discriminatory termination reasons, arguing Lee was an independent contractor, and disputing the existence of a hostile work environment. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, identifying unresolved factual disputes regarding the termination's true cause, Lee's employment status, and the claims of a hostile work environment and employer liability. Additionally, plaintiff's ADA claims were dismissed by stipulation of the parties.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)New York Human Rights Law
References
42
Case No. Dkt.# 9
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Barnhart

Johnny Lee, acting pro se, sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c) of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision that he was not disabled and thus ineligible for SSDI or SSI benefits. After an initial denial, a reversal and remand by the court, and a second hearing before ALJ John Costello which again denied benefits, Lee filed this action. The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the court granted. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding substantial evidence in the administrative record. The court concluded that Lee's subjective complaints of chronic back and knee pain were not supported by objective medical evidence from multiple physicians, and the ALJ's credibility findings were reasonable.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeSSDIChronic Back PainKnee PainMedical EvidenceResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkCredibility DeterminationAdministrative Law Judge
References
3
Case No. 03-11-00066-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2012

M. Lawrence Naumann and Naumann Farm, LLC v. Edward R. Lee and Wife, Josephine R. Lee Edward J. Lee and Wife, Zenaida Lee Robert D. Norris and Wife, Dana K. Norris Diana Toler and Von Toler

M. Lawrence Naumann and Naumann Farm, LLC (Appellants) appealed a trial court's summary judgment in an easement dispute. The trial court had ruled that Naumann possessed only a limited easement to access a portion of his property, invalidating an easement for the remainder, and had also awarded attorney's fees to the appellees. Naumann challenged these decisions, arguing errors in the denial of their motion, the granting of appellees' cross-motion, the permanent injunction, and the attorney's fee award. The Court of Appeals reviewed the judgment, including the application of the "strip and gore" doctrine, and affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety. The court concluded that the trial court did not err in its declaratory summary judgment, the permanent injunction, or the award of attorney's fees to the appellees.

Easement disputeSummary judgmentAppellate reviewProperty lawStrip and gore doctrineDeed constructionDeclaratory reliefInjunctive reliefAttorney's feesTexas Court of Appeals
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 407 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