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. 03-10-00465-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Debra Smith v. James East, Individually and D/B/A Avery Fine Wines & Spirits And Terri Bayless East, Individually and D/B/A Avery Fine Wines & Spirits

Debra Smith appealed a take-nothing judgment in a wrongful-death action following her daughter S.S.'s death from alcohol poisoning. Smith sued James East and Terri Bayless East, owners of Avery Fine Wine & Spirits, for allegedly providing alcohol to S.S., a minor, alleging common-law negligence and negligence per se. A jury found James 35% responsible, S.S. 25% responsible, and Smith 40% responsible. The district court denied recovery, applying Texas's proportionate responsibility scheme which treats a wrongful-death plaintiff and the decedent as a single 'claimant' whose combined responsibility (65%) exceeded the 50% recovery threshold. The appellate court affirmed, holding that binding precedent compelled the conclusion that Smith and S.S. are a single 'claimant' for purposes of section 33.001, thus barring recovery.

Wrongful DeathAlcohol PoisoningMinor Alcohol ConsumptionNegligence Per SeProportionate ResponsibilityComparative NegligenceStatutory InterpretationClaimant DefinitionDerivative ClaimsJury Verdict
References
34
Case No. 03-03-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission/East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery And Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. v. East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case involves the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center, Clinic for Special Surgery, and intervenor Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. (collectively "East Side") sued the Commission to invalidate certain default rules that applied when specific guidelines were absent. The district court declared one rule (133.304(i)) invalid and enjoined its enforcement, citing unlawful delegation of authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding the rule's invalidity and dissolved the injunction, citing a Texas Supreme Court decision finding no unlawful delegation. The court affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee in the absence of specific guidelines.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDelegation of AuthorityRulemakingAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewInsurance CarrierFee GuidelinesFair and Reasonable RatesStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. 03-04-00744-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2006

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. North East Independent School District and Dr. Richard A. Middleton, in His Official Capacity as Custodian of Public Records for North East Independent School District

This case addresses whether a memorandum from a school principal to a teacher, which outlines complaints and directs corrective actions, qualifies as a confidential "document evaluating the performance of a teacher" under Texas Education Code Ann. § 21.355. The Attorney General argued it was merely a reprimand and therefore not confidential, while the North East Independent School District (NEISD) contended it was an evaluation. The district court sided with NEISD, granting their motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, concluding that the memorandum's content, including the principal's judgment on performance issues, corrective directives, and provisions for further review, indeed constituted an evaluation, thereby making it confidential and exempt from public disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act.

Public Information ActTeacher Performance EvaluationConfidentialitySchool District RecordsSummary Judgment ReviewStatutory InterpretationGovernment TransparencyEducation CodeAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. 12-15-00014-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2015

East Texas Medical Center D/B/A East Texas Medical Center Emergency Medical Services v. Jody Delaune Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Crystal Delaune, and as Next Friend of D. D., D. D. and D. A. D., Minors

The appellant, East Texas Medical Center (ETMC), appeals a judgment finding it negligent for failing to train its EMS providers. The core issue revolves around whether ETMC adequately trained its employees on patient restraint protocols in a behavioral emergency, which allegedly led to the death of Crystal Delaune. ETMC argues that there is legally insufficient evidence to establish proximate cause because the EMS providers were previously found not negligent. Additionally, ETMC contends the appellee's expert testimony on the standard of care and breach was conclusory and based on improper inference-stacking. The appellant seeks a reversal of the verdict and a take-nothing judgment.

Negligent TrainingProximate CauseLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceStandard of CareEmergency Medical ServicesAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentEmployee MisconductMedical Negligence DefenseExpert Witness Testimony
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2011

East 51st Street Crane Collapse Litigation v. Lincoln General Insurance

This Supreme Court order addresses an insurance coverage dispute stemming from a 2008 crane collapse in Manhattan, which led to multiple claims against the property owner, East 51st Street Development Company, LLC. The primary conflict involved insurance companies Lincoln General, AXIS Surplus, and Interstate Fire and Casualty regarding their duty to defend East 51st Street and reimburse Illinois Union Insurance Company for defense costs. Initially, the Supreme Court granted various motions for summary judgment, establishing duties to defend and determining policy priority. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying Lincoln General's assertions of excess coverage and declaring Lincoln General primarily obligated to provide coverage to East 51st Street. Other aspects, such as AXIS and Interstate's duty to share defense costs, and East 51st Street's status as an additional insured, were affirmed.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendDefense Costs ReimbursementPrimary CoverageExcess CoverageSummary Judgment MotionAdditional InsuredCrane Collapse LitigationPolicy InterpretationInsurance Policy Limits
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garner v. East Texas National Bank of Palestine

Roy and Charla Garner filed suit against Phillip O. Watson and East Texas National Bank, alleging violations of state and federal consumer protection acts for failure to make proper disclosures in a consumer credit transaction. The Garners had contracted with Watson to build a home, executing a lien contract and note. Watson then transferred his interest in the contract to East Texas National Bank to secure an interim construction loan. The Garners contended the Bank was liable as a 'subsequent assignee' for Watson's original non-disclosures and for its own alleged failures during a note renewal. The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment, prompting an appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding sufficient admissible evidence to support the implied finding that the Bank held only a security interest in the Garners' note and was therefore not a 'subsequent assignee' liable under the consumer credit laws.

Consumer Credit LawTruth in Lending ActSecurity InterestsAssignment (Law)Parol Evidence RuleContract InterpretationAppellate ProcedureImplied Findings of FactFinancial Disclosure RequirementsReal Estate Finance
References
8
Case No. 03-04-00744-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2006

Abbott v. NORTH EAST INDEPENDENT SCH. DIST.

This case addresses whether a memorandum from a school principal to a teacher, detailing performance complaints and requiring corrective actions, is confidential and exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) as 'a document evaluating the performance of a teacher.' The Attorney General contended it was a mere reprimand and thus not confidential. However, the North East Independent School District (NEISD) sought a declaration that the document was confidential. The district court sided with NEISD, granting its motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals, upon reviewing the memorandum, concluded that it constitutes an evaluation of the teacher's performance, given it reflects the principal's judgment, offers corrective guidance, and mandates further review. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's decision, deeming the document confidential and exempt from disclosure under Texas Education Code Ann. § 21.355.

Public Information ActTeacher PerformanceConfidentialitySchool DistrictEducation CodeTexas Government CodeSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationOpen RecordsEmployment Law
References
20
Case No. E2001-02090-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2002

Kelso Oil v. East West Truck Stop

This appeal centers on an Unconditional Guaranty signed by Frank Webb, president and owner of East West Truck Stop, Inc., guaranteeing the company's debt to Kelso Oil Company, Inc. The primary dispute involved whether the trial court improperly used parol evidence to identify the 'buyer' in the guaranty as the corporate entity, rather than 'Frank Webb d/b/a East West Truck Stop', which Webb argued violated the Statute of Frauds. Webb also contested the finding of adequate consideration and the dismissal of a counterclaim alleging usurious late charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the 'buyer' was sufficiently identified as the corporate entity, thereby preventing the guaranty from being an 'exercise in futility'. The court also found sufficient consideration for the guaranty and upheld the dismissal of the usury counterclaim.

GuarantyStatute of FraudsParol EvidenceCorporate DebtPersonal LiabilityForbearanceConsiderationUsuryLate ChargesContract Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Telenor East Invest AS v. Altimo Holdings & Investments Ltd.

In this securities case, Telenor East Invest AS (Telenor East) sued Altimo Holdings & Investments Limited and other entities (Alfa Group) for alleged insider trading, illegal tender offer, and misleading disclosure statements related to their purchase of shares in VimpelCom. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint or compel arbitration. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration, ruling the claims were outside the arbitration agreement's scope. The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court dismissed the Sections 13(e), 10(b), and 14(e) claims due to insufficient pleading, but allowed the Sections 13(d) and 14(d) claims to proceed.

Securities FraudInsider TradingTender OfferDisclosure ViolationsMotion to DismissArbitration AgreementPSLRARule 9(b)Exchange ActVimpelCom
References
53
Showing 1-10 of 287 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