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. M1999-01680-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 1999

Moore v. Moore

This case involves the divorce of Rentonia Jenice Moore (mother) and Leonard Moore (father), focusing on custody of their two daughters, child support, and division of marital property. The trial court granted the mother a divorce, sole custody, and visitation for the father. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the custody decision and the division of marital property, with a modification to increase child support based on the father's actual income. The court also reversed the trial court's finding on the china, silver, and crystal, awarding them solely to the father as separate property, and affirmed the award of attorney fees to the mother at trial, remanding for a determination of appellate attorney fees.

DivorceChild CustodyChild SupportMarital Property DivisionAttorney FeesDomestic ViolenceAppellate ReviewEquitable DistributionParental FitnessVisitation Rights
References
18
Case No. 01-14-00906-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2014

John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC v. the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Inc.

This appeal concerns a judgment for attorneys' fees awarded to the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston (Houston BBB) against John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. John Moore initially filed a lawsuit alleging various torts, and the Houston BBB moved to dismiss under the Anti-SLAPP statute. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the Houston BBB's motion, leading to a jury trial on attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions. The jury found in favor of the Houston BBB, and the trial court entered a judgment consistent with the verdict, dismissing John Moore's claims with prejudice and awarding fees and sanctions. John Moore, as the appellant, argues that the awarded attorneys' fees are not legally sufficient due to inadequate documentation and that a new trial is warranted to consider all of its claims, including antitrust claims, which it contends were improperly severed. The core argument is about the reasonableness and necessity of the fees and the equity of the award given the procedural history.

Attorneys' FeesAnti-SLAPP StatuteAppellate ProcedureCase ConsolidationJudicial DiscretionLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceReasonableness of FeesSanctionsTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeFree Speech Rights
References
18
Case No. No. 08-09-00226-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2010

Las Palmas Medical Center v. Robert Moore, M.D. and Debora Moore, M.D.

Las Palmas Medical Center appealed an order that denied its motion to confirm an arbitration award, vacated the award, and ordered a new arbitration proceeding against Robert Moore, M.D., and Debora Moore, M.C. The dispute arose from a recruiting agreement for the doctors to practice urology, which included an arbitration clause. Following an arbitration that awarded damages to Las Palmas, the Moores sought to vacate the award, alleging fraud, evident partiality, and misconduct by the arbitrator, Penny Hobbs. The trial court initially vacated the award. However, the appellate court reviewed the statutory grounds for vacatur, finding no evidence to support the claims of fraud, evident partiality, or misconduct. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and rendered judgment confirming the original arbitration award.

ArbitrationContract DisputeMedical RecruitmentBreach of ContractFraud AllegationEvident PartialityArbitrator MisconductArbitration Award ConfirmationAward VacaturAppellate Review
References
62
Case No. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Education Foundation, Dan Parsons, Chris Church, Church Enterprises, Inc., Gary Milleson, Ronald N. McMillan, D' Artagnan Bebel, Mark Goldie, Cha v. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. No. 03-09-00449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2013

Angelica Mitchell Moore and Kevin Alexander Moore v. Donna M. Brown and Alvin Benard Brown

Angelica Mitchell Moore and Kevin Alexander Moore appealed a district court's judgment denying their request to invalidate termination of their parental rights and an adoption order concerning their child, M.K.B. The Moores had signed affidavits relinquishing their parental rights to Donna M. Brown and Alvin Benard Brown. They argued that their affidavits were void because they were executed less than 48 hours after the child's birth, violating Texas Family Code section 161.103. They also claimed the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and alleged fraud by the Browns. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the Moores' claims were barred by Texas Family Code section 161.211. This section limits direct or collateral attacks on parental rights termination orders based on relinquishment affidavits to issues of fraud, duress, or coercion in the execution of the affidavit, and imposes a six-month deadline for such attacks. The court found that the Moores' complaints regarding the 48-hour rule and UCCJEA did not fall within these permitted grounds and they failed to prove fraud, duress, or coercion in the execution of the affidavits.

Parental Rights TerminationAdoption LawVoluntary Relinquishment AffidavitIrrevocability of AffidavitsTexas Family Code Section 161.211Statutory InterpretationDirect Attack on JudgmentCollateral Attack on JudgmentFraud in ExecutionDuress in Execution
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Cotter and Co.

Plaintiff Moore appealed a take-nothing judgment in his negligence suit against defendant Cotter. Moore alleged Cotter's negligent stacking of goods in a trailer caused him bodily injury when the goods fell on him. Cotter countered with defenses including Moore's contributory negligence, pre-existing injuries, and argued Moore was a borrowed employee, thereby limiting his remedy to workers' compensation, albeit without presenting proof of coverage. A jury found both parties negligent, apportioning 45% to Cotter and 55% to Moore, and awarded no damages for pain and suffering. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing Moore's procedural failures and the irrelevance of the borrowed employee finding without evidence of workers' compensation insurance.

NegligenceComparative NegligenceBorrowed EmployeeWorkers' CompensationJury VerdictTake-Nothing JudgmentAppellate ReviewMotion Non Obstante VeredictoEvidentiary ObjectionDamages
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore Savage v. Kopplin

Carl Kopplin sued the San Antonio Traction Company, J. P. Haynes, and the estate of G. Bedell Moore for personal injuries sustained when he was struck by an obstruction negligently placed near a streetcar track. The obstruction, a fence, was erected by Haynes at Moore's request. The trial court found in favor of Kopplin against Moore's executors for $10,000, absolving the Traction Company and Haynes. Moore's executors appealed, arguing Haynes was an independent contractor and they should not be liable. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, ruling that Moore's estate was liable due to Moore's active participation in creating a public nuisance, irrespective of Haynes' contractor status.

NegligencePersonal InjuryPublic NuisanceIndependent ContractorJoint Tort-FeasorsEmployer LiabilityStreet ObstructionProximate CauseConcurring NegligenceAppeal
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Macintyre v. Moore

Pro se plaintiffs Stephen R. MacIntyre and Scott E. Sullivan sued Jack W. Moore and the Town of Henrietta, alleging Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations and unjust enrichment, stemming from their alleged misclassification as independent contractors. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, challenging the unjust enrichment claim and the FLSA claim against Moore. The court granted dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, finding an implied-in-fact contractual relationship barred it, and dismissed the FLSA claim against Moore in his official capacity as redundant. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the FLSA claim against Moore in his individual capacity, concluding that a public official can be held individually liable as an "employer" under the FLSA based on an "economic realities" test. Consequently, the FLSA claims against Moore in his individual capacity and the Town of Henrietta will proceed.

MisclassificationIndependent ContractorFair Labor Standards ActFLSAUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityPublic Official LiabilityPro Se LitigationEconomic Realities Test
References
121
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Old Republic Insurance Co.

Both plaintiffs, Jimmy Ray Moore and Alonzo Moore, coal miners, alleged total and permanent disability due to coal worker's pneumoconiosis under Tennessee's Workmen’s Compensation Law. The Chancellor found them totally disabled due to the occupational disease and that the cases fell under the "Second Injury Fund," with benefits limited by the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. The defendants appealed, challenging the constitutionality of state law, the applicability of total disability provisions, and the Second Injury Fund's role. The Court upheld the constitutionality of T.C.A. § 50-1105 and affirmed the finding that plaintiffs were totally disabled solely due to pneumoconiosis. However, the Court reversed the Chancellor's ruling on the "Second Injury Fund," holding it inapplicable in such cases as they are governed by federal law. The consolidated cases were therefore remanded to the Chancery Court for Knox County for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Coal miningPneumoconiosisOccupational diseaseTotal permanent disabilitySecond Injury FundStatutory interpretationConstitutional challengeFederal Coal Mine Health and Safety ActTennessee lawDisability benefits
References
4
Case No. ADJ3419685 (GRO 0029797)
Regular
Dec 10, 2000

MARLENA MOORE vs. ALBERTSONS, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Marlena Moore against Albertsons and Specialty Risk Services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has reviewed the petition and the report from the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Consequently, the WCAB has denied the Petition for Removal. The decision incorporates the reasoning provided in the WCJ's report.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDMARLENA MOOREALBERTSONSSPECIALTY RISK SERVICESPetition for RemovalWCJ reportdenial of removaladministrative law judgeADJ3419685GRO 0029797
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 190 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