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. 03-15-00335-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2015

Herbert Rolnick v. Sight's My Line, Inc., a Florida Corporation Stewart Lantz Riggs, Aleshire & Ray Blazier, Christensen, Bigelow & Vir, P.C. And Adams & Graham

This document is an appellant's reply brief in an interlocutory appeal from a Texas judicial district court. The appellant, Herbert Rolnick, challenges the trial court's denial of his special appearance, arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient minimum contacts with Texas. Rolnick asserts that his contacts were made solely in a representative capacity for his Florida-based client and that the appellees' 'minimum contacts' analysis is flawed, relying on superseded legal principles and misattributing actions. He emphasizes that his legal services were performed in Florida and did not constitute purposeful availment of Texas laws. The brief also addresses and refutes arguments regarding waiver and agency theory put forth by the appellees.

Personal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceMinimum ContactsDue ProcessInterlocutory AppealTexas Long-Arm StatuteWalden v. FioreChoice of LawAgency TheoryLegal Malpractice
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spherenomics Global Contact Centers v. Vcustomer Corp.

Plaintiff Spherenomics Global Contact Centers sued defendant vCustomer Corporation for breach of a non-solicitation agreement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Spherenomics, a provider of outsourced call-center services, alleged that VCC, its subcontractor, improperly solicited and secured a long-term contract with their mutual client, Fingerhut, in violation of their November 2002 agreement. While the court found that VCC indeed breached the non-solicitation provision, it ultimately ruled in favor of VCC. The court concluded that Spherenomics failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that VCC's breach directly caused Spherenomics to suffer damages, specifically lost profits, deeming such claims too speculative to be recoverable under New York contract law or equitable theories.

Breach of ContractNon-Solicitation AgreementLost ProfitsDamagesCausationPromissory EstoppelUnjust EnrichmentContract LawNew York LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyes v. Morris Polich & Purdy, LLP

This case concerns an appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial and a stay of execution of a foreign judgment. The Appellee, Morris Polich & Purdy, LLP, had previously secured a default judgment in Nevada against the Appellant, Irving D. Boyes, and other corporate entities for unpaid attorney's fees. This Nevada judgment was subsequently domesticated in Dallas County, Texas. Appellant Boyes challenged the enforcement of the foreign judgment, asserting that the Nevada court lacked personal jurisdiction due to insufficient minimum contacts. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, affirming the denial of the motion for new trial and the stay of execution, on the grounds that Boyes had submitted to Nevada's jurisdiction by filing an answer and failing to appeal an earlier jurisdictional challenge, and that a signed contract with a forum selection clause further supported the finding of minimum contacts.

Foreign Judgment EnforcementFull Faith and CreditPersonal JurisdictionMinimum ContactsMotion for New TrialStay of ExecutionDefault JudgmentPost-Answer DefaultForum Selection ClauseAbuse of Discretion
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Memorial Hospital System v. Fisher Insurance Agency, Inc.

Memorial Hospital System appealed a trial court order that sustained Fisher Insurance Agency's plea to jurisdiction and motion for new trial. Memorial contended that Fisher had sufficient contacts with Texas to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction, arguing that a single fraudulent telephone misrepresentation causing foreseeable economic injury in Texas constituted minimum contacts consistent with the Texas long-arm statute and federal due process. The court agreed, finding a strong nexus between the tort and the contact. Memorial also argued that Fisher's failure to answer in the original suit constituted conscious disregard. The appellate court found that Fisher failed to establish that its failure to answer was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment in favor of Memorial.

Personal JurisdictionLong-Arm StatuteDue ProcessMinimum ContactsNegligent MisrepresentationDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialForeseeabilityEconomic InjurySingle Contact
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Memorial Hospital System v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arkansas

Plaintiff Memorial Hospital System, a Texas-based healthcare provider, initiated this action against Defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arkansas, an Arkansas insurance company. Memorial alleged jurisdiction based on a single long-distance phone call from its employee in Texas to Blue Cross in Arkansas, during which an agent allegedly misrepresented insurance coverage for a patient. In reliance on these representations, Memorial treated the patient and subsequently filed a claim for $10,070, which Blue Cross refused to pay. The court evaluated whether this unsolicited telephone contact constituted sufficient minimum contacts to establish *in personam* jurisdiction over Blue Cross in Texas under federal due process. Citing relevant case law, the court concluded that such a fortuitous or unsolicited contact did not demonstrate purposeful availment by Blue Cross of the benefits and protections of Texas law, thus failing to satisfy due process requirements. Consequently, the court granted Blue Cross's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Personal jurisdictionMinimum contactsDue processLong-arm statuteNegligent misrepresentationERISAInsurance coverage disputeInterstate commerceTexas lawArkansas corporation
References
35
Case No. KP-0431
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0431

This opinion addresses the applicability of Texas's minimum wage laws to minor league baseball players. It confirms that minor league baseball players are "covered by" the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which subsequently exempts them from the minimum wage requirements of Texas Labor Code chapter 62, pursuant to section 62.151. The opinion further considers whether a state-law exemption for "amusement or recreational establishments" under Labor Code section 62.158 would apply. It notes that this is a fact-bound inquiry, but suggests that a six-month baseball season could meet the seasonality requirement for this exemption.

Minimum Wage LawsFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Minor League BaseballTexas Labor CodeExemptionsAmusement or Recreational EstablishmentSave America’s Pastime Act (SAPA)Interstate CommerceEmployment LawAttorney General Opinion
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TeleVentures, Inc. v. International Game Technology

TeleVentures, a Texas corporation, sued Nevada-based International Game Technology (IGT) for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference following the termination of their business relationship. The district court sustained IGT's special appearance, dismissing the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the court examined whether IGT had established sufficient minimum contacts with Texas through various communications and agreements. The court found IGT's contacts were incidental and not purposefully directed towards Texas, thus affirming the district court's decision to dismiss the suit for want of personal jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceMinimum ContactsDue ProcessSpecific JurisdictionContract LawTortious InterferenceFraudNegligent MisrepresentationLong-Arm Statute
References
27
Case No. 01-02-00439-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2003

Michiana Easy Livin' Country Inc. v. Holten

This is an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of a special appearance by Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. Holten, a Texas resident, sued Michiana, an Indiana corporation, alleging misrepresentations and other claims related to the purchase of a motor home. Michiana argued that Texas courts lacked personal jurisdiction due to insufficient contacts. The Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Michiana had established sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to support specific jurisdiction. The court noted that Michiana knew Holten was a Texas resident and the motor home would be used in Texas, making the alleged tort and economic injury foreseeable in the forum state.

Personal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceMinimum ContactsDue ProcessTexas Long-Arm StatuteSpecific JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealForeseeabilityDeceptive Trade Practices ActBreach of Warranty
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John R. v. State of New York Office of Children and Family Services

Petitioners Patricia R. and John R. were 'indicated' for child maltreatment after their children had continued contact with an uncle who had sexually abused their oldest daughter. Despite being explicitly instructed by a child protective services caseworker to prevent any contact, the children reported seeing and greeting the uncle. Patricia R. even sent the youngest child to the uncle's apartment. The petitioners challenged this determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, requesting the report be amended to unfounded. However, the court confirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence that the children's physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or in imminent danger due to the petitioners' failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in supervision.

Child MaltreatmentChild AbuseSexual AbuseParental NeglectFailure to SuperviseCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceFamily LawChild Protection
References
5
Case No. 14-18-01107-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2020

Changchun Gaoxiang Special Pipes Co., LTD ( Golsun) v. Flexsteel Pipeline Technologies, Inc.

Appellant Golsun, a Chinese company, appealed the denial of its special appearance, which challenged personal jurisdiction in a Texas court. Appellee FlexSteel sued Golsun for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and other torts, alleging Golsun used FlexSteel's proprietary pipe design and manufacturing methods due to the unlawful disclosures by a former FlexSteel employee, Bin Chen, who later worked for Golsun. The trial court denied Golsun's special appearance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Chen's Texas contacts were attributable to Golsun as his employee, establishing minimum contacts, and that exercising jurisdiction comported with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Personal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceTrade Secrets MisappropriationBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceBreach of Fiduciary DutyAgency LawEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorMinimum Contacts
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 702 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