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. WR-83,135-01
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2015

Granger, Bartholomew

Bartholomew Granger, the applicant, is filing objections to the convicting court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in his writ of habeas corpus application. He argues that the convicting court failed to conduct an adequate fact-finding process, leaving numerous controverted and material factual issues unresolved. Key issues include potential prosecutorial misconduct regarding withheld evidence (his daughter's journal) and claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate and present crucial mitigating evidence. Granger also points out inaccuracies in his trial counsel's affidavits and criticizes the court's practice of adopting the State's proposed findings wholesale. Consequently, Granger requests the Court of Criminal Appeals to remand his application to the convicting court for a full and fair opportunity to address his claims.

habeas corpusineffective assistance of counselBrady violationprosecutorial misconductcapital murderpost-conviction reliefjudicial reviewfact-findingdue processTexas
References
19
Case No. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clayton B. Obersheimer, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

Plaintiff, a subcontractor for Massa Construction, Inc., initiated an action against defendant surety to secure payment on a labor and materials bond after Massa ceased payments due to alleged breaches by plaintiff. Defendant denied plaintiff's claim, asserting plaintiff materially breached its subcontract by failing to make pension contributions, provide releases, and obtain a separate payment bond. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability, which defendant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of compliance and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a material breach. The court noted that alleged non-payments to suppliers only affected the subcontract price, not Massa's obligation to continue performance, and found no requirement for plaintiff to pay pension contributions to the Iron Workers District Council or obtain a separate payment bond from glaziers unions.

SubcontractorSurety BondPublic Improvement ProjectLabor and Materials BondPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractPension ContributionsPayment ObligationsGlaziers Unions
References
17
Case No. 2-08-027-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2008

Terry Simmons v. Elmow Holdings, Inc. F/K/A Rio Pumping Services, Inc.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment rendered against appellant Terry Simmons on statute of limitations grounds in his personal injury suit against appellee Elmow Holdings f/k/a Rio Pumping Services, Inc. Simmons argued the trial court erred by granting summary judgment because Elmow should have been estopped from asserting a limitations defense, there were disputed issues of material fact regarding due diligence in obtaining service, he was not given the opportunity to amend his summary judgment affidavits, and there were disputed issues regarding the date the cause of action accrued. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Simmons failed to preserve his complaint for review regarding sanctions and that no disputed material fact issues were raised concerning the accrual date or due diligence in effecting service.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDue DiligenceService of ProcessAppellate CourtTexas LawJudicial AdmissionAffidavitWaiver of Service
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McElhaney v. City of Tyler

This appeal concerns a worker's compensation case where JoAnn McElhaney, widow of a City of Tyler employee, sought benefits after her husband's death from a heart attack. The City of Tyler, a self-insured employer, was granted a summary judgment by the trial court, terminating benefits, despite the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) having previously ordered payments due to the City's failure to timely contest compensability. McElhaney appealed, arguing that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the City's waiver of its right to contest compensability and whether her husband's injury occurred in the course and scope of employment. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, concluding that the evidence did not conclusively establish the City's timely delivery of notice of contest and that material fact issues remained. The case was remanded for a trial on these issues, and McElhaney's constitutional challenge to the Act was overruled.

Worker's CompensationSummary Judgment AppealWaiver of DefenseCompensability DisputeHeart Attack InjuryCourse and Scope of EmploymentTimely FilingProcedural IssuesAgency InterpretationMaterial Fact Issues
References
12
Case No. 13-23-00436-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2024

John William Johnson v. Town of Fulton

Appellant John William Johnson challenged a permanent injunction issued in favor of Appellee Town of Fulton, arguing errors in subject matter jurisdiction, summary judgment, and attorney's fees. Fulton had sought injunctive relief against Johnson for obstructing Casterline Drive, a public right-of-way, and also requested declarations concerning nuisance and abandonment of an easement. Johnson contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the easement boundaries due to conflicting surveys. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and the grant of summary judgment, finding no material fact issue concerning the easement. However, the court reversed the award of attorney's fees to Fulton, concluding that the declaratory relief obtained was duplicative of the injunctive relief and appeared to be solely a vehicle for recovering fees.

Road obstructionPublic right-of-wayPermanent injunctionSummary judgmentSubject matter jurisdictionAttorney's feesDeclaratory judgmentEasement disputeProperty boundariesTexas Government Code
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. JTM Materials, Inc.

This case addresses motor carrier liability, specifically whether a licensed motor carrier leasing equipment is vicariously liable for the negligence of the equipment driver under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). Plaintiff Grant Morris was injured in an accident involving a tractor-trailer driven by an intoxicated Jerry Lee Largent. Morris sued JTM Materials, Inc. and DCV, Inc. (JTM), alleging vicarious liability, respondeat superior, direct liability for negligence, joint enterprise, and joint venture. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to JTM on several claims. The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in part, ruling that an interstate motor carrier is vicariously liable under FMCSR for a driver's negligence and finding material fact issues regarding negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and entrustment claims. Conversely, the court affirmed the summary judgment for JTM on Morris's claims related to respondeat superior, civil conspiracy, joint venture, and joint enterprise, ultimately affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Motor Carrier LiabilityVicarious LiabilityNegligent HiringNegligent EntrustmentRespondeat SuperiorFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsEquipment Lease AgreementStatutory EmployeeSummary Judgment ReviewProximate Cause
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franks v. Brookshire Bros., Inc.

Mark Franks appeals a summary judgment in his personal injury action against his employer, Brookshire Brothers, Inc., a non-subscriber to worker's compensation insurance. Franks argues a release he signed is invalid due to its inapplicability to his specific injuries, lack of consideration, and Brookshire's alleged breach by non-payment of recited consideration. The court finds no material fact issue regarding the release's reference to his claims. However, it reverses and remands for trial, holding that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the release was supported by consideration, specifically the non-payment of ten dollars and the insufficiency of past benefits or return to work as consideration.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentRelease AgreementConsiderationContract BreachEmployer LiabilityNon-subscriberWorkers' CompensationTexas LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lindley v. Transamerica Insurance Co.

Mrs. Edwin Wayne Lindley sued Transamerica Insurance Company for Workmen’s Compensation benefits, alleging her husband's death resulted from an accidental injury during employment. The trial court granted summary judgment for Transamerica, finding no material fact issue. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded, citing that plaintiff's affidavits, including one from Lindley's son detailing his father's condition after work and an expert medical opinion, were sufficient to raise a material fact issue. The court also held that Lindley's statements to his son should be considered as res gestae. Therefore, summary judgment should not have been entered, and the case requires a full hearing on the merits.

Summary Judgment ReversalAccidental Injury CausationHeart Attack ClaimArteriosclerosis ContributionRes Gestae ExceptionMedical Expert TestimonyEvidentiary BurdenScope of Employment DisputePre-existing Medical ConditionAppellate Procedure
References
9
Case No. 2016-02-0380
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

LaGuardia, Kathleen Delores v. Total Holdings USA, Inc. d/b/a Hutchinson Sealing Systems

The employee alleged an injury from a slip and fall at work. The trial court initially denied benefits and later granted summary judgment for the employer, finding insufficient evidence that the injury primarily arose out of employment. The employee appealed, arguing that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. The Appeals Board reviewed the record, noting circumstantial evidence from the employee regarding "oily dust" around her workstation after the fall. The Board concluded that this evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether an employment hazard caused the fall. Consequently, the Board reversed the order granting summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Slip and FallSummary JudgmentCircumstantial EvidenceArising Out of EmploymentScope of EmploymentMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewRemandOccupational HazardEmployee Testimony
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 14,207 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