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. 07-15-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2014

Mark P. Hardwick, Individually and D/B/A Mark P. Hardwick Oil and Gas Properties and Mark P. Hardwick, LLC v. Smith Energy Company, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Smith Energy Resource Oil, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and on Behalf of Smith Energy Partners I, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership

This is an appeal from a civil dispute over oil and gas projects in West Texas. The original lawsuit was filed by Smith Energy Company against landman Mark Hardwick and his LLC, alleging breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, and theft. The jury initially awarded Smith $104,000 in damages. However, the trial court significantly increased the recovery to over $5 million in forfeiture and $3.5 million in attorney's fees, in addition to ordering partial rescission of several contracts. Hardwick appeals, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the various claims and the excessiveness of the remedies, arguing that the contracts explicitly disavowed fiduciary duties and that the forfeiture was a baseless land grab. The appellate brief details arguments for reversing the contract, theft, and tort theories, as well as the additional remedies imposed by the trial court.

Oil and Gas DisputeContract BreachFraud ClaimsFiduciary DutyStatutory TheftWorking InterestsOverriding Royalty InterestsLandman ServicesAttorney's Fees DisputeEquitable Remedies
References
83
Case No. 2-07-133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2008

Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc. D/B/A Benchmark Custom Homes and Mark David Rotella v. Joan Cutting

This case involves an appeal by Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc. d/b/a Benchmark Custom Homes and Mark David Rotella (Appellants) against Joan Cutting (Appellee). Appellants challenged the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment and deny their motion for a new trial, primarily arguing a lack of proper notice. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that evidence of selective refusal of service established constructive notice. The court also upheld Mark Rotella's joint and several liability, citing his personal guarantee in the construction contract and his liability for tortious acts as an agent. Appellants' claim regarding a lack of fraudulent intent was overruled due to insufficient briefing.

Summary JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice RequirementsDue ProcessConstructive NoticeService of ProcessJoint and Several LiabilityCorporate Agent LiabilityFraudulent IntentAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 03-20-00127-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2021

Sandra Tobias and Aaron R. Tobias v. Joseph David Marks

Sandra Tobias (Mother) and Aaron R. Tobias (Child) appealed the trial court's final Order in Suit to Modify Parent–Child Relationship. They challenged the denial of increased child support for specific periods and the denial of attorneys’ fees, expenses, or costs. Joseph Marks (Father) had received a substantial inheritance, prompting Mother to petition for child support modification. The trial court increased child support for some months in 2017 but denied retroactive increases for earlier months and refused to include the full value of an investment account in calculations, allowing only the interest generated to be considered. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decisions, finding no abuse of discretion regarding the retroactive modification of child support, the exclusion of the investment account's principal value from calculations, or the denial of attorneys' fees and costs.

Child Support ModificationParent-Child RelationshipAbuse of DiscretionRetroactive Child SupportInvestment Account IncomeAttorneys' FeesInheritanceFamily LawAppellate ReviewTexas Family Code
References
34
Case No. 2-07-226-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2008

Mark Rotella, Individually, and Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc., D/B/A Benchmark Custom Homes v. Dozier Cabinet Works, Inc.

Appellants Mark Rotella, individually, and Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc., d/b/a Benchmark Custom Homes, appealed a trial court's default judgment in favor of Dozier Cabinet Works, Inc. Appellants contended that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion for new trial, arguing they failed to set up a meritorious defense. The court found that mere allegations of beliefs or legal conclusions were insufficient for a meritorious defense. Appellants also argued that the trial court erred in holding Rotella vicariously liable under the Texas Property Code, claiming no contract existed in the record. However, the default judgment stated that the trial court heard evidence and found Rotella personally liable under Chapter 162 of the Texas Property Code. The appellants failed to provide a reporter's record to show error in the trial court's judgment. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionMeritorious DefenseVicarious LiabilityTexas Property CodeConstruction Trust FundsAppellate ReviewReporter's Record BurdenCivil Procedure
References
7
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05319 [119 AD3d 766]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Siekkeli v. Mark Mariani, Inc.

In an action for personal injuries, plaintiff Mika P. Siekkeli was allegedly injured while working at Mark Mariani, Inc., when a heavy door fell on him. He sued Mariani and Mark Varley. Mariani then filed a third-party action against its insurance broker, Frank Crystal & Co., alleging inadequate coverage. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment motions by Varley and Mariani, citing triable issues regarding Siekkeli's employment status, but granted Crystal's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed the order, finding that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine employment status and that the Supreme Court erred in granting Crystal's motion.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentInsurance Broker NegligenceThird-Party ActionEmployment StatusPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewCoverage DenialIndependent Contractor
References
8
Case No. 09-06-180 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2007

in Re Commitment of Michael Marks

Michael Marks appealed a civil commitment order issued under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, after a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator. Marks challenged the trial court's exclusion of his expert witnesses, Dr. Jason Dunham and psychotherapist Sara Smith, citing improper disclosure and the failure to hold a gatekeeper hearing for the State's expert, Dr. Michael Arambula. He also alleged improper closing arguments by the State. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Marks failed to timely disclose expert testimony, did not properly request a gatekeeper hearing, and waived objections to the closing arguments.

Civil CommitmentSexually Violent Predator ActExpert Witness ExclusionDiscovery RulesGatekeeper HearingClosing ArgumentAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureMental IllnessSchizoaffective Disorder
References
16
Case No. 13-11-00005-CV AND 13-11-00013-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2013

Brannan Paving Gp, LLC D/B/A Brannan Paving Company v. Pavement Markings, Inc., San Juan Insurance Agency, Inc. D/B/A Valley Insurance Providers and Leicht General Agency

This case involves an appeal from a breach of contract dispute between a contractor, Brannan Paving, and its subcontractor, Pavement Markings. Brannan Paving alleged Pavement Markings breached a subcontract by failing to obtain additional insured coverage. Pavement Markings joined its insurance agents, VIP and LGA, for negligence in procuring insurance. The appellate court found the trial court erred by including a waiver instruction in the jury question, as there was insufficient evidence of Brannan Paving's intent to waive. Consequently, the breach of contract claims were reversed and remanded. However, the take-nothing judgments on Brannan Paving's negligence claims against VIP and LGA were affirmed due to lack of privity, and Pavement Markings' cross-appeal for attorney's fees under the DTPA was denied due to the absence of actual damages.

Breach of ContractSubcontractor AgreementAdditional Insured CoverageWaiver InstructionJury Charge ErrorNegligence ClaimsInsurance Agent LiabilityPrivity of ContractDeceptive Trade Practices ActAttorney's Fees
References
60
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05293 [119 AD3d 718]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Caiazzo v. Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc.

Ronald Caiazzo, Jr. sued Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., Julia Coen, and Ana Reyes for personal injuries sustained while installing an air conditioning system at a house owned by Julia Coen. Caiazzo fell from a makeshift step, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing certain claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims against Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., and Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against Julia Coen, citing the homeowner exemption for Coen. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment to Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc. on the common-law negligence claim, granting dismissal. The denial of summary judgment for Julia Coen on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was affirmed, as triable issues of fact remained regarding her notice of a dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceElevated Work SiteDangerous ConditionHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewSuffolk County
References
25
Case No. 07-0783
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2009

Irving W. Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital

Irving W. Marks, a patient recovering from back surgery at St. Luke’s Hospital, fell when the bed's footboard came loose. He sued the hospital, alleging ordinary negligence and health care liability claims. The Supreme Court of Texas examined whether the claim regarding the defective footboard was a health care liability claim under the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act (MLIIA), which would require an expert report. The Court concluded that the claim concerning the defective hospital bed footboard was ordinary negligence, not a health care liability claim, as it did not involve medical or professional judgment. However, Marks's other claims alleging negligent care and supervision were deemed health care liability claims. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case to the trial court, and denied Marks's request for a grace period to file an expert report for the health care liability claims due to insufficient evidence of accident or mistake.

Medical MalpracticeHospital NegligencePremises LiabilityHealth Care Liability ClaimOrdinary NegligenceExpert ReportMedical Liability and Insurance Improvement ActTexas LawStatutory InterpretationPatient Fall
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Mark C.H.

This case addresses whether New York's SCPA article 17-A, governing guardianship for persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities, meets constitutional standards without requiring periodic reporting and review. The facts involve Mark C.H., an adult with profound autism and mental retardation, for whom a $3 million trust existed but whose guardians (petitioner, his late mother's attorney, and a corporate bank) initially failed to use funds for his benefit, leading to suboptimal care. The court, applying the Mathews v Eldridge test and considering international human rights norms, found that the significant infringement on a ward's liberty interests necessitates periodic oversight. Consequently, the court held that article 17-A must be read to include a requirement for yearly reporting and judicial review for guardians of the person. The guardianship for Mark C.H. was granted to the petitioner with this new yearly reporting obligation.

GuardianshipDue ProcessMental RetardationDevelopmental DisabilitiesSCPA Article 17-APeriodic ReviewWard's RightsTrust Funds MismanagementMedical Care AccessConstitutional Law
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 1,730 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