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. 14-18-00062-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2019

Michael Lee Wyrick A/K/A Mike Wyrick and Gregory Michael Ruhnke A/K/A Greg Ruhnke v. Business Bank of Texas, N. A.

This case involves two individual guarantors, Michael Lee Wyrick and Gregory Michael Ruhnke, appealing a trial court's summary judgment that enforced their $3 million promissory note guaranty in favor of Business Bank of Texas, N.A., and dismissed their tort claims. The guarantors argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment due to contract defenses like fraudulent inducement and mutual mistake, and affirmative counterclaims including fraud and tortious interference. The appellate court found the guarantors lacked standing for some counterclaims and failed to raise fact issues for others and their defenses. The court also reviewed a permanent anti-suit injunction issued by the trial court, concluding it was an abuse of discretion as the circumstances did not warrant such extraordinary relief. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the guaranties and counterclaims, but modified it to dissolve the anti-suit injunction.

Guaranty enforcementPromissory noteSummary judgment appealFraudulent inducementNegligent misrepresentationMutual mistakeEquitable estoppelTortious interferenceNegligence claimsGross negligence claims
References
76
Case No. 03-15-00416-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2015

Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. Michael H. Nasserfar Michael E. Task And Tycord R. Gosnay v. Ameripro Funding, Inc.

AmeriPro Funding, Inc. is a residential mortgage lender. Appellants Michael H. Nasserfar, Michael E. Task, and Tycord R. Gosnay, former employees, are accused of secretly transmitting confidential records to competitor Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. before resigning, and continuing to possess and use these records. This brief argues for the affirmance of a temporary injunction granted by the district court against the appellants for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and other torts. The injunction aims to prevent further use of confidential information and solicitation of specific customers, with evidence supporting imminent and irreparable harm to AmeriPro. The brief also addresses arguments regarding the temporary injunction's compliance with Rule 683, the definition of 'customers', and the return of confidential information.

Confidential Information MisappropriationTrade Secret TheftBreach of Fiduciary DutyNon-Solicitation ViolationsTemporary Injunction AppealEmployee PoachingUnfair CompetitionCustomer List ProtectionFinancial Data ProtectionContract Interference
References
71
Case No. 03-01-00649-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2002

Farmers Insurance Exchange Truck Insurance Exchange Fire Insurance Exchange Mid-Century Insurance Co. Mid-Century Insurance Co. of Texas Farmers New World Life Insurance Co. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company Farmers Group, Inc. v. Michael Leonard and Michael Sawyer on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated

This case involves an interlocutory appeal by Farmers Insurance Exchange and several affiliated companies (collectively 'Farmers') challenging a trial court's order certifying a class action. The class action was brought by Michael Leonard and Michael Sawyer on behalf of themselves and other agents, alleging that Farmers improperly calculated and awarded bonuses under four different bonus contracts. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that California's substantive law was correctly applied based on the 'most significant relationship' test. The court also found that the class met the requirements for certification, including adequate representation, predominance of common issues, and superiority of a class action over individual lawsuits, thereby rejecting Farmers' arguments for decertification.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealContract DisputeBonus PaymentsChoice of LawRule 42 Texas Rules of Civil ProcedureAdequacy of RepresentationPredominance of Common IssuesSuperiority of Class ActionCalifornia Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Michael v. City of Dallas

Steven C. Michael, a white, disabled probationary employee, was discharged by the City of Dallas after a co-worker reported he made violent threats. Michael sued the City, alleging wrongful termination based on race and disability discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). The City moved for summary judgment, asserting it had a zero-tolerance policy for workplace violence and that Michael failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, including showing disparate treatment or that he was replaced by someone outside his protected class. The trial court granted summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that Michael failed to present evidence beyond subjective beliefs to support his claims of discrimination.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationWrongful DischargeSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActPrima Facie CaseDisparate TreatmentWorkplace ViolenceProbationary Employee
References
16
Case No. 04-20-00203-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2021

Michael S. Goodlett, Jr., Through His Legal Guardian, Michael S. Goodlett, Sr. v. Northeast Independent School District

Michael S. Goodlett, Jr., a former special needs student with autism, was employed as a custodian by Northeast Independent School District (NEISD). He was terminated after an incident where he pushed a coworker, Maria Castillo, causing injury, and due to prior threats of violence against coworkers. Goodlett, through his legal guardian, appealed the trial court's order granting NEISD's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing his claims for disability discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). Goodlett alleged discriminatory discharge/disparate treatment and failure to accommodate his disability during the investigation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Goodlett failed to establish a prima facie case for either claim, as he did not identify similarly situated comparator employees, nor did he request accommodation for his disability. The court concluded that NEISD terminated Goodlett due to his misconduct, not his disability, and thus governmental immunity was not waived.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment LawTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTCHRAPrima Facie CaseDiscriminatory DischargeDisparate TreatmentFailure to AccommodateGovernmental ImmunityPlea to the Jurisdiction
References
17
Case No. 02-23-00277-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2024

Michael H. Lind and Mary C. Lind v. Michael Morrison, Trustee of the Morrison Family Trust D/B/A MBM Properties

The Linds appealed the district court's dismissal of their de novo appeal from a justice court judgment. They had sued Michael Morrison, Trustee of the Morrison Family Trust, in small claims court, which resulted in a judgment for Morrison on his counterclaim. The district court dismissed the Linds' appeal for lack of jurisdiction, citing their alleged failure to timely pay court costs and appear at a final hearing. However, the appellate court found that the Linds had timely perfected their appeal by sending a cash deposit via mail and that the district court erred in applying Rule 143a regarding cost payment, noting the applicability of the mailbox rule. The appellate court also determined that dismissal for failure to appear was improper due to the absence of a proper warning, thus reversing the dismissal order and remanding the case for further proceedings.

TexasCourt of AppealsSecond Appellate DistrictFort WorthAppeal DismissalJurisdictionJustice Court JudgmentDe Novo AppealCash DepositCourt Costs
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Michael B.

This appeal concerns six-year-old Michael B., born with cocaine toxicology and placed in foster care with his foster parents (appellant foster mother and Quintín L.). Following a prior reversal by the Appellate Division, which mandated a best-interests hearing, the Family Court awarded custody to Michael's natural father. The Appellate Division now reverses this decision, finding that the child's best interests are served by awarding custody to the foster parents. The court cited the child's strong bond with his foster parents, the natural father's deficient parenting, lack of emotional support, and potential for emotional and physical harm. The case is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine the father's visitation rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyBest Interests of ChildFoster CareChild NeglectPsychological EvaluationFamily LawAppellate ReviewParental FitnessVisitation Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nielsen v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Francis Nielsen, a dock-builder, and his wife, Jacqueline Nielsen, sued Weeks Marine Inc. for personal injuries and loss of consortium under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The case, initially filed in state court, was removed to federal court. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, citing a procedural defect in removal, but maintained subject matter jurisdiction under the Jones Act. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Barge 525 was not a 'vessel in navigation' and therefore Nielsen was not a 'seaman' under the Jones Act, dismissing all claims.

Jones ActSeaman StatusVessel in NavigationSummary JudgmentMaritime LawPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumRemoval JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureBarge
References
17
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. 14-15-00024-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2015

Microsoft Corporation// Michael Mercieca v. Michael Mercieca// Cross-Appellee, Microsoft Corporation

This Appellant's Reply Brief, filed by Microsoft Corporation, addresses an appeal regarding a retaliation/constructive discharge claim brought by Michael Mercieca. Microsoft argues that the jury's findings of constructive discharge, good faith engagement in a protected activity, and but-for causation lack legal sufficiency. The corporation contends that Mercieca's claims are based on subjective interpretations of isolated incidents and an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Furthermore, Microsoft challenges the awarded damages, including back-pay, mental anguish, and attorney's fees, arguing they are based on flawed evidence. Microsoft requests that the Court reverse the judgment and render a take-nothing judgment.

RetaliationConstructive DischargeEmployment LawTexas Commission on Human Rights ActAppealLegal SufficiencyDamagesMental AnguishAttorney's FeesConspiracy
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 1,148 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