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. 08-10-00082-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

State v. Cemex Construction Materials South, LLC

The State of Texas sued Cemex Construction Materials South, L.L.C. for conversion, breach of contract, and trespass to try title, asserting ownership of valuable building materials on four parcels of public school lands in El Paso County. The State claimed these mineral rights were reserved under the 1895 Land Sales and Mining Acts during original sales in 1900, 1906, and 1912. The trial court denied the State's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Cemex's motion. On appeal, the court reviewed the rulings de novo and found that the State unequivocally reserved mineral rights. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, granted the State's motion for partial summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Mineral RightsPublic School LandsSummary JudgmentState of TexasConversion ClaimBreach of ContractMining Act of 1895Land Sales Act of 1895Real Property LawStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. 04-15-00117-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2015

Rhino Contractors, LLC v. Vulcan Construction Materials, LP

Rhino Contractors, LLC, appeals a trial court's default judgment in favor of Vulcan Construction Materials, LP. Vulcan sued Rhino for breach of contract or on a sworn account, alleging Rhino failed to pay $454,846.76 for materials supplied for its construction business, plus 18% interest and attorney's fees. The default judgment included these amounts along with prejudgment interest and court costs. Rhino argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for new trial because it never received proper notice of the lawsuit, thus failing to file an answer. Rhino also asserts it has a meritorious defense, including claims of double billing and improper credits on invoices from Vulcan, and that granting a new trial would not prejudice Vulcan. Furthermore, Rhino contends the damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees awarded were unliquidated and not supported by legally or factually sufficient evidence, as Vulcan's affidavit lacked an itemized account and its attorney's fee affidavit did not meet required evidentiary standards.

Default JudgmentBreach of ContractSworn AccountMotion for New TrialService of ProcessCraddock FactorsMeritorious DefenseDamagesPrejudgment InterestAttorney's Fees
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riedel v. Steger Material Handling Co.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment, finding evidence that J.G.M. Installation & Service, Inc. created the accident condition and Steger Material Handling Co., Inc. was responsible for its subcontractor's negligence. The court also correctly denied the plaintiff's motion to pierce Steger Material's corporate veil and add Richard Steger as a defendant, asserting that insufficient corporate assets do not justify disregarding the corporate form. However, the court erred by granting the plaintiff's motion for additional causes of action under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), as the plaintiff was not a protected worker under these statutes. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order by denying that portion of the plaintiff's motion, while the plaintiff's remaining contention was not preserved for review.

Summary JudgmentProximate CauseCorporate VeilLabor LawSubcontractor NegligenceAppellate ReviewMotion to Amend ComplaintProtected WorkersVicarious LiabilityErie County Supreme Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

George v. Building Materials Corp. of America

In this workers' compensation case, the Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed the trial court's award of 90% permanent partial disability for hearing loss to employee Bobby R. George against Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation. The Court considered GAF's appeal regarding a statute of limitations defense and the extent of disability. Reversing the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel's decision, the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying GAF's post-trial motion to amend its answer to include the statute of limitations defense due to undue delay and potential prejudice to the opposing party. Furthermore, the Court reinstated the trial court's finding of 90% permanent partial disability, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against the initial award.

Permanent Partial DisabilityHearing Loss ClaimStatute of Limitations DefensePleading AmendmentTrial Court DiscretionVocational DisabilityMedical Expert TestimonyIndustrial Noise ExposureEmployer LiabilityNotice of Injury
References
12
Case No. 01-08-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2009

Expo Motorcars, LLC. v. Harris County Appraisal District, Harris County Appraisal Review Board

Expo Motorcars, L.L.C. challenged the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) and Harris County Appraisal Review Board. Expo contested the constitutionality and application of Texas Tax Code sections 23.121(b) and 41.44(a)(1) regarding the valuation of its motor vehicle inventory for tax years 2004 and 2005. Expo argued it was denied meaningful due process review, presented uncontradicted evidence of actual value, and claimed the statutory formula violated the Texas Constitution. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Expo's protest was untimely for 2004, the valuation method correctly used previous year's sales, and the tax code sections were constitutional as applied to Expo.

property taxmotor vehicle inventoryappraisaldue processTexas Tax Codeconstitutional challengesummary judgmenttax valuationstatutory interpretationappeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Morelli v. Tops Markets

Claimant, having sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and receiving benefits, was questioned by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) regarding work activities at a 2011 hearing. Immediately after, the employer and its carrier sought to introduce surveillance video and investigator testimony, alleging a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The WCLJ denied this request and precluded the evidence, ruling that the carrier failed to disclose the surveillance prior to the claimant's testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, reiterating the established requirement for timely disclosure of surveillance materials to prevent 'gamesmanship.' The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action, as the carrier had an opportunity to disclose the evidence before prompting the WCLJ's questioning and before the claimant testified.

Workers' Compensation LawSurveillance EvidenceDisclosure ObligationPreclusion of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityClaimant TestimonyEmployer ResponsibilitiesCarrier ResponsibilitiesBoard Decision
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2004

Claim of Marks v. Evergreen Country Club

Claimant, an office manager with Evergreen Country Club, sought workers' compensation benefits alleging harmful exposure to fumes and materials at work, which led to a temporary aggravation of pre-existing asthma. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found no further causally related disability. After the case was remitted for further review, including deposition testimony from a treating physician, the original decision was reinstated and subsequently upheld by the Board. The claimant appealed the Board's denial of her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the denial was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, as the claimant had not presented any new evidence.

Workers' CompensationAsthmaOccupational DiseaseReconsiderationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousCausally Related DisabilityPre-existing Condition
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abreu-Mercedes v. Chater

Plaintiff Benigno Abreu-Mercedes sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security, which denied his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. After an Administrative Law Judge's decision in February 1994, which was upheld by the Appeals Council in July 1994, the plaintiff appealed. The District Court reviewed whether the Commissioner's findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether newly submitted medical records constituted a basis for reversal or remand. The court found substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits and ruled the new medical evidence, including an arthroscopic surgery in June 1994, was not material to the relevant period under review. Consequently, the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeSubstantial Evidence ReviewResidual Functional CapacityMedical ImpairmentPleadings MotionNew EvidenceMateriality
References
13
Case No. M2009-01347-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2010

Betts Nixon v. City of Murfreesboro

Betts Nixon, a city employee, challenged her dismissal for violating the city's drug and alcohol policy after a blood alcohol test showed a level significantly above the permitted limit. The trial court affirmed the city's disciplinary review board's decision, which Nixon appealed, raising arguments concerning de novo review, estoppel, due process, and the sufficiency of evidence. The appellate court concluded that the review was properly conducted under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Ultimately, the court found substantial and material evidence supported the disciplinary review board's decision to terminate her employment and affirmed the trial court's decision.

Employment LawTermination of EmploymentDrug and Alcohol PolicyAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewDue ProcessEquitable EstoppelAbuse of DiscretionSubstantial EvidencePublic Employee
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 20,014 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