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. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Ex Rel. United Mine Workers of America v. Askew

This case concerns a petition for mandamus filed by the United Mine Workers of America, District No. 19, seeking to compel the board of review and the commissioner of labor to pay unemployment compensation benefits. The dispute arose after a labor disagreement in March 1939, leading to a four-week unemployment period for mine workers. The commissioner initially approved benefits, but the board of review reversed this decision. A chancery court then reversed the board, ordering benefits. However, the board declined to make an order for immediate payment pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. The current mandamus petition, seeking to enforce immediate payment, was dismissed by the chancery court at Nashville, and this dismissal was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court, which found no statutory authority for present payment during an ongoing appeal.

Unemployment CompensationLabor DisputeMandamusJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureStay of ExecutionChancery CourtSupreme CourtTennessee Law
References
1
Case No. No. 07-96-0102-CV
Regular Panel Decision

in Re Crawford & Company, Crawford & Company Healthcare Management, Inc., Patsy Hogan, and Old Republic Insurance Company, Relators

Crawford & Company et al. petitioned for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to grant their plea to the jurisdiction and motions for summary judgment, thereby dismissing all claims by Edward Glenn Johnson and Natalie Johnson for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to exclusive workers' compensation jurisdiction. The court denied the petition, finding that Crawford failed to meet the burden for mandamus relief. Reasons included a five-month delay in filing the petition, which was initiated shortly before the trial date, suggesting an attempt to further hinder adjudication. Additionally, mandamus is generally unavailable for reviewing summary judgment denials, especially concerning issues unrelated to administrative remedies. The court also clarified that previous rulings like Texas Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger did not preclude all common law claims against workers' compensation insurers, particularly malicious prosecution, which Crawford itself admitted fell outside the workers' compensation scheme.

MandamusPlea to the JurisdictionSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionWorkers' CompensationAdministrative RemediesExhaustion of RemediesAbuse of DiscretionInadequate Legal RemedyLaches
References
12
Case No. 03-02-00089-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2003

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated v. State of Texas Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas And Jose Montemayor, Insurance Commissioner of Texas

Appellants Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated appealed a trial court's judgment concerning the disclosure of certain records under the Public Information Act. The case originated from a request for information made to the Texas Department of Insurance related to appellants' applications for certification as Independent Review Organizations (IROs). The Attorney General had previously ruled that the requested information, including reviewer lists, contracts, and compensation, could not be withheld. Appellants argued that the information was 'confidential by law' and also excepted from disclosure under the commercial or financial information clause of the PIA. The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that appellants failed to meet their burden to prove an exception to disclosure applied.

Public Information ActDisclosure of RecordsIndependent Review OrganizationsConfidentialityCommercial InformationFinancial InformationAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewInjunctive ReliefAdministrative Law
References
12
Case No. C-179715
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2004

In Re Bullock

Relators filed an original proceeding for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel Judge Larry Thorne of the 317th District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, to reinstate an order terminating David Castro's parental rights and an adoption order for C.A.T.B. Previous litigation in Brazos County had seen Castro's parental rights terminated, then later reinstated via a bill of review, which consequently voided Matthew Bullock's adoption of C.A.T.B. The relators contended that the orders granting the bill of review and setting aside the adoption were void due to statutory six-month limitations under the Texas Family Code. However, the appellate court denied the writ, ruling that these statutory requirements were not jurisdictional prerequisites and the defense was waived by not being timely asserted in the original bill of review hearing. Therefore, the respondent judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the reinstatement of the termination and adoption orders.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AdoptionWrit of MandamusJudicial DiscretionJurisdictional PrerequisitesStatutory InterpretationWaiver of DefenseBill of ReviewFamily Law TexasChild Reunification
References
17
Case No. WR No. 20,644
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Larson, Paul Allen

Paul Larson, acting pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Error/Bill of Review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Larson alleges errors appearing on the face of the record and extrinsic fraud committed by the State in connection with prior Cause Numbers 449008-C, 449008-D, 465007-C, and 465007-D. He specifically claims the State mislabeled a June 12, 2014, answer as 'Original' and intentionally delayed its delivery. Larson seeks a full review of the Habeas Record, an order for the Harris County District Clerk's Office to provide complete files, and for the Court to grant his Bill of Review and the relief originally sought in his Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Writ of Mandamus.

Writ of ErrorBill of ReviewHabeas CorpusMandamusFraudError on RecordExtrinsic FraudTexas Court of Criminal AppealsPro SeSupervised Release
References
2
Case No. 13-02-529-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2003

in Re: C & H News Co.

The relator, Nueces News Agency, Inc., d/b/a ETD KroMar, Southern Division (also known as C & H News Co.), petitioned the Thirteenth District Court of Texas for a writ of mandamus. The relator sought to compel arbitration in a wrongful death suit brought by Odilia Gallegos and others (real parties in interest) following the death of an employee, Jesus Gallegos, Sr. The respondent, Judge Rolando Olvera of the 357th District Court of Cameron County, had denied the relator's motion to compel arbitration. This appellate court previously denied mandamus relief due to an incomplete record. Upon a second review with a complete record, the Court found that the arbitration agreement, by incorporating an employee handbook, allowed the relator to unilaterally amend the types of claims subject to arbitration. Consequently, the Court ruled that the arbitration agreement was an illusory promise, lacking mutuality of obligation, and therefore unenforceable. The petition for writ of mandamus was denied, affirming the trial court's decision.

MandamusArbitration AgreementIllusory PromiseEmployment ContractMutuality of ObligationUnilateral AmendmentFederal Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionContract Interpretation
References
29
Case No. PUC Docket No. 34298
Regular Panel Decision

Coastal Habitat Alliance v. Public Utility Commission

Justice Jan P. Patterson writes a concurring and dissenting opinion regarding the majority's decision to affirm the district court's granting of pleas to the jurisdiction in a case involving the Public Utility Commission and AEP Texas Central Company. The dissent argues that the Coastal Habitat Alliance, despite being a non-party, possesses an independent right to judicial review of the Commission's final order under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), citing Mega Child Care. Justice Patterson asserts that the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) does not prohibit such non-party review and that the Alliance has exhausted its administrative remedies. The opinion concurs with the majority on the proper dismissal of claims brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) and constitutional due process grounds but disputes the majority's stance on mandamus review for the Commission's discretionary denial of intervention. The dissent would reverse the district court's order in part and remand for further proceedings.

Administrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewPlea to the JurisdictionPublic Utility CommissionNon-Party InterventionExhaustion of Administrative RemediesDue ProcessWrit of MandamusStatutory InterpretationTexas Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Guzman

The relator, Espiridion Guzman, was involved in a fatal truck collision, leading to a wrongful death suit against him and his employer, Bicentennial Trucking, Inc., by the heirs of Domingo Vargas, Sr. Co-defendants Haas Anderson and Warning Lites, Inc., seeking contribution and indemnity, requested extensive discovery from Guzman, specifically authorizations for his driver, medical, employment, and worker's compensation histories. Despite Guzman not challenging the discoverability of the information, he disputed the trial court's authority to compel him to create these authorizations. The trial court ordered Guzman to execute the forms. On mandamus review, the appellate court determined that the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure do not grant a court the power to force a party to create documents solely to comply with a discovery request. Consequently, the writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, compelling the trial court to vacate its order.

MandamusDiscoveryAuthorizationTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureNon-party discoveryNegligent entrustmentMedical recordsEmployment recordsWorker's Compensation claimsTrial court authority
References
6
Case No. DC-14-07255
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2015

in Re: Michelin North America, Inc.

This case is an Original Mandamus Proceeding arising from a product liability lawsuit in the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. Plaintiffs, Samuel Medina, Obdulia Medina, Natalye Medina, and Navil Gibson, are suing Michelin North America, Inc. and Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars following a catastrophic tire failure that left Obdulia Medina quadriplegic. The core of the dispute involves extensive discovery requests by the plaintiffs for Michelin's internal documents, such as aspect specifications, technical notes, and adjustment data, essential for proving alleged design and manufacturing defects. Michelin resisted these requests, citing trade secret privilege and arguing overbreadth. The court issued several rulings, largely granting motions to compel discovery (with narrowed scope), to depose Michelin employees, and to designate responsible third parties. However, a stay was granted for the production of aspect specifications and financial information, pending potential mandamus review, while Michelin's motion to bifurcate the trial for punitive damages was also granted.

Product LiabilityTire DefectManufacturing DefectDesign DefectDiscovery DisputeTrade SecretsMandamusPunitive DamagesBifurcated TrialTire Aging
References
56
Showing 1-10 of 6,191 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