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. 14-18-00800-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2021

Ana Lisa Mines, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jorge Luis Mines, and Old American Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Kenon D. Murphy

This case involves an appeal from jury verdicts in favor of Kenon D. Murphy, who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle collision caused by Jorge Luis Mines. Appellants, Ana Lisa Mines, personal representative of Mines' estate, and Old American Mutual Fire Insurance Company, raised several issues, including the non-enforcement of an alleged settlement agreement, errors in jury instructions, and the sufficiency of evidence for lost wages and future medical expenses. The appellate court affirmed most aspects of the trial court's judgment but determined that the evidence supporting the award for future medical expenses was factually insufficient. Consequently, the court suggested a remittitur of $7,000, which would reduce the total damages awarded to $505,859.00. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to allow a trial amendment regarding Ana Lisa Mines's capacity as a defendant.

Motor Vehicle CollisionPersonal InjuryNegligenceGross NegligenceSettlement AgreementJury VerdictExpert Witness TestimonyMedical ExpensesLost Earning CapacityAppellate Review
References
51
Case No. 13-08-108-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2009

Valerie Clark and Holly Venture, a Texas Joint Venture v. South Padre Island Development, L.L.C.

Appellants Valerie Clark and Holly Venture appealed multiple summary judgments granted in favor of South Padre Island Development, L.L.C., Town of Laguna Vista, and Cameron County. The core of the dispute was a declaratory judgment action concerning Clark's rights regarding the alleged unauthorized closure of a public road, which she contended violated statutory procedures. Clark also challenged the trial court's rulings on her standing to sue and the award of attorney's fees. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Cameron County had no jurisdiction over the road, which fell under the exclusive control of Laguna Vista. The court further concluded that Clark lacked standing because she did not own property directly abutting the contested section of the road and upheld the award of attorney's fees.

Summary Judgment AppealDeclaratory Judgment ActionRoad Closure DisputeProperty Law StandingMunicipal JurisdictionCounty ResponsibilityAttorney's Fees AwardAppellate ProcedureFinality of JudgmentDue Process Claim
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawler v. Dallas Statler-Hilton Joint Venture

Dalia H. Lawler, a hotel maid supervisor, sustained injuries when a ceiling collapsed, leading her to file for workers' compensation and receive benefits. Subsequently, she sued her employer, Dallas Statler-Hilton Joint Venture, and its members, Hilton Hotels Corporation (HHC) and The Prudential Insurance Company of America, along with Commerce Garage Joint Venture, for negligence under premises liability. The defendants were granted summary judgment, asserting immunity under the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. On appeal, Lawler challenged the trial court's decision, arguing that the joint venture and its members were not all her employers. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that individual members of a joint venture are considered employers for workers' compensation purposes, thus barring Lawler's separate negligence claim.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentJoint VentureEmployer ImmunityExclusive RemedyNegligenceTexas Civil ProcedureAffidavit CompetencyAgency Principles
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LTV Steel Co. v. Connors (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

This case is an appeal of two orders issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The first order granted partial summary judgment to the Mining Companies and LTV Steel Corporation, holding they were not legally obligated to pay retiree health benefits. The second order granted the United Mine Workers of America's cross-motion for summary judgment, determining that the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Benefit Plan and Trust was liable to pay these benefits. The Plan & Trust appealed both orders to the District Court, arguing violations of the Retiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection Act, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denial of due process, and misinterpretation of its obligations under the Wage Agreement's 'no longer in business' clause. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's orders, finding the Act inapplicable, subject matter jurisdiction proper as a core proceeding, sufficient opportunity to litigate, and the Plan & Trust liable due to contractual interpretation and collateral estoppel from prior litigations.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 ReorganizationRetiree Health BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementUMWAEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionCore ProceedingCollateral Estoppel
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Ex Rel. United Mine Workers of America v. Askew

This case concerns a petition for mandamus filed by the United Mine Workers of America, District No. 19, seeking to compel the board of review and the commissioner of labor to pay unemployment compensation benefits. The dispute arose after a labor disagreement in March 1939, leading to a four-week unemployment period for mine workers. The commissioner initially approved benefits, but the board of review reversed this decision. A chancery court then reversed the board, ordering benefits. However, the board declined to make an order for immediate payment pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. The current mandamus petition, seeking to enforce immediate payment, was dismissed by the chancery court at Nashville, and this dismissal was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court, which found no statutory authority for present payment during an ongoing appeal.

Unemployment CompensationLabor DisputeMandamusJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureStay of ExecutionChancery CourtSupreme CourtTennessee Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White Budd Van Ness Partnership v. Major-Gladys Drive Joint Venture

A joint venture, Plaintiff/Appellee Major-Gladys Drive Joint Venture, sued Defendant/Appellant The White Budd Van Ness Partnership, an architectural firm, for damages stemming from their alleged failure to properly investigate and advise on the use of 'C-Tile' in a shopping center construction. The 'C-Tile' proved unsuitable and had to be replaced. The jury found the architects liable for deceptive trade practices, including misrepresentations and unconscionable actions, as well as negligence and breach of contract. The trial court entered a judgment of $498,157.40 plus attorney's fees against the architects. On appeal, the court affirmed the applicability of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) to professional architectural services and extended the implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance to such services. The appellate court overruled various points of error raised by the architects, including issues related to a 'Mary Carter' settlement agreement with a co-defendant contractor. The judgment was reformed to disallow a $41,000.00 credit granted to the architects and, as reformed, was affirmed.

Architect MalpracticeDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Professional Services LiabilityImplied WarrantyUnconscionable ActionNegligenceBreach of ContractConstruction DefectsC-Tile FailureExpert Testimony
References
26
Case No. 20867/18, 5648, 2024-07714
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2026

Palma v. Woodside Ventures, LLC

The defendant, Woodside Ventures, LLC, appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. Woodside argued that the plaintiff, Javier Palma, was its special employee, thereby invoking the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. Additionally, Woodside claimed to be the alter ego of Palma's employer, A&E Real Estate Management, LLC. The motion court and the Appellate Division rejected these arguments, finding that Woodside failed to establish prima facie evidence of special employment or alter ego status. Evidence regarding financial integration, commingling of assets, and control over A&E's daily operations was insufficient. The court also noted a conflict between an affidavit and the management agreement concerning employee responsibilities. Therefore, the order denying summary judgment was unanimously affirmed.

Special EmploymentAlter Ego DoctrineSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityEmployer LiabilityCorporate Veil PiercingAppellate DivisionManagement AgreementEmployment RelationshipControl Test
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ASARCO LLC v. Americas Mining Corp.

Plaintiffs ASARCO LLC and Southern Peru Holdings LLC, as debtors in possession, sued Defendant Americas Mining Corporation (AMC) to recover stock and damages. The core dispute involves a 2003 transfer of 54.18% of Southern Peru Copper Company (SPCC) stock from ASARCO's subsidiary to AMC, which plaintiffs allege was a fraudulent transfer. The court found ASARCO had standing through reverse-veil piercing. While constructive fraudulent transfer failed as ASARCO received reasonably equivalent value for the stock, the court found AMC liable for actual fraudulent transfer due to intent to hinder ASARCO's creditors. Additionally, the court found ASARCO's directors breached their fiduciary duties due to ASARCO's insolvency, and AMC aided and abetted this breach and conspired with the directors to effectuate the transfer. Punitive damages were denied.

Fraudulent TransferBreach of Fiduciary DutyCorporate ConspiracyAlter Ego DoctrineCorporate InsolvencyAsset SaleMineral Mining IndustryDebt RestructuringStock ValuationBankruptcy Avoidance Powers
References
219
Case No. CV 95-1477
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1996

Maggio v. Leeward Ventures, Ltd.

Leonard Maggio, the plaintiff, initiated this action seeking specific performance of a real estate contract for the sale of the Blue Water Marina property and damages for breach of contract against Leeward Ventures, Barry Relinger, and Gary A. Panasuk. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of lacking subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and failure to state a cognizable claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court denied the defendants' motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Regarding the failure to state a claim, the Court denied dismissal for claims related to an alleged '1994 Contract' but granted dismissal for claims derived from prior Consent Orders in a separate foreclosure action, finding Maggio was not an intended third-party beneficiary of those orders. Additionally, Maggio's cross-motion to consolidate this action with the prior foreclosure action was denied.

Specific PerformanceReal Property ContractBreach of ContractSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(1)Rule 12(b)(6)Statute of FraudsThird-Party BeneficiaryForeclosure Action
References
42
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07353 [189 AD3d 994]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2020

Cremona v. Venture Holding & Mgt. Corp.

Frank Cremona (plaintiff/appellant) sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while servicing an alarm system at a property owned/leased by Venture Holding & Management Corp. et al. (defendants/respondents). Cremona initiated legal action, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1), alongside common-law negligence. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied Cremona's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and concurrently granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the entire complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Cremona's work, involving the replacement of magnetic switches and adjustment of magnets, constituted routine maintenance and did not fall within the scope of activities protected by Labor Law § 240 (1). Furthermore, the Court found that the defendants lacked supervisory control over Cremona's work, thereby justifying the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.

Personal InjuryLabor LawLadder FallRoutine MaintenanceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetySupervisory ControlSafe Place to WorkAlarm System Service
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 262 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