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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reynolds v. Ozark Motor Lines, Inc.

This case, heard by the Tennessee Supreme Court, reviewed a judgment from the Court of Appeals which had reversed jury verdicts for the plaintiffs and dismissed their suit against Ozark Motor Lines, Inc. The plaintiffs, former team truck drivers for Ozark, were discharged after refusing to drive a truck without adequate time for a safety inspection, citing violations of the Tennessee Motor Carriers Act. The Court of Appeals found no basis for a public policy exception to the employment at-will law. This Court, however, reinstated the trial court's judgment, affirming that retaliatory discharge is actionable when an employer violates a clear statutory public policy. The Court emphasized that refusing to violate safety regulations designed for public welfare is protected conduct, and the jury verdicts supporting the plaintiffs' claim were backed by material evidence.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment At-Will DoctrinePublic Policy ExceptionMotor Carrier Safety ActDriver Safety RegulationsTruck InspectionWrongful TerminationJury Verdict ReinstatementAppellate ReviewStatutory Violation
References
13
Case No. 03-10-00160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation Frank S. Denton v. Reema Khan, D/B/A Salon Rupa - Shapes Brow Bar

This appeal concerns district court orders that partially denied a plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The appellants, governmental defendants including the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its executive director and members, faced claims from appellee Reema Khan, who operates eyebrow threading businesses. Khan was penalized for practicing cosmetology without a license and challenged this, arguing eyebrow threading is not within the statutory scope of cosmetology. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for Khan's declaratory claims, dismissing them as redundant to her Administrative Procedures Act (APA) judicial review claim. However, the court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion given Khan's viable APA claim and probable right to recovery against the Department's regulation of eyebrow threading.

Cosmetology RegulationEyebrow ThreadingAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgments ActPlea to JurisdictionTemporary InjunctionStatutory InterpretationProfessional LicensingGovernmental AuthorityUltra Vires Act
References
24
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06370 [243 AD3d 1087]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

Matter of Rorapaugh v. New Penn Motor Express LLC

Claimant Sally Rorapaugh's spouse died in a work-related motor vehicle accident. She settled a third-party action for $5.9 million net, prompting the workers' compensation carrier to argue its consent was required and to discontinue payments. The Workers' Compensation Board found the carrier's consent unnecessary due to the settlement exceeding benefits and calculated a lien reduction, concluding the carrier owed claimant an additional $113,631.55. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed that carrier consent was not needed for the large settlement. However, it reversed the Board's lien reduction calculation, ruling the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine the equitable apportionment of legal expenses, which must be addressed by the court where the third-party action was filed. The case was remitted for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlementCarrier ConsentLien ReductionEquitable ApportionmentJurisdictionMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory AmountFuture Benefits
References
6
Case No. 03-02-00403-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2003

Randy Pretzer Scott Bossier Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. D/B/A Bossier Country v. the Motor Vehicle Board and Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation

This case involves an appeal concerning sanctions imposed by the Motor Vehicle Board against Randy Pretzer, Scott Bossier, and Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. (collectively "Bossier") for violations of the Texas Motor Vehicle Code, specifically fraudulent practices that led to $180,000 in civil penalties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's authority to sanction non-licensees for new vehicle sales violations under section 4.06(a)(5). However, it reversed the district court's finding of Board jurisdiction over used vehicle sales violations of section 4.06(a)(5) occurring before June 8, 1995. Additionally, the Court reversed the Board's power to prospectively limit Pretzer's employment in the motor vehicle industry. The case was remanded to the district court for redetermination of civil penalties consistent with the opinion, while Bossier's other arguments regarding notice, standard of proof, and constitutional challenges were overruled.

Motor Vehicle Code ViolationsFraudulent PracticesCivil PenaltiesStatutory AuthorityAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUsed Vehicle SalesNew Vehicle SalesLicense RevocationDue Process
References
49
Case No. 03-99-00265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2000

Ford Motor Company Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. And Daniel H. Foley, Jr./Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation v. Motor Vehicle Board, Texas Department of Transportation/Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. Daniel H. Foley, Jr. Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation And Ford Motor Company

This case involves an appeal from a district court judgment concerning an order from the Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation. The dispute originated from Ford's proposed termination of Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc.'s franchise due to alleged abuse of Ford's Competitive Price Assistance (CPA) program, where Metro misrepresented customer names to obtain higher discounts. The Board found good cause for termination but imposed a conditional termination remedy requiring the sale of Metro's dealership. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination for good cause, the refusal to transfer the dealership to Eileen Beard, and the denial of Ford's requested chargeback expenses. However, it reversed and remanded the district court's affirmation of the Board's conditional termination remedy, finding it unlawful.

Franchise TerminationDealer FraudCPA Program AbuseStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawMotor Vehicle BoardEquitable EstoppelGood Cause TerminationAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
33
Case No. 03-07-00509-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2009

in Re General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Division and Austin Chevrolet, Inc. D/B/A Munday Chevrolet/Geo

This original proceeding involves the district court's plenary power over a suit inadvertently dismissed for want of prosecution while abated. The underlying suit by Landmark against General Motors and Austin Chevrolet was abated in 2001. In 2003, the district court inadvertently dismissed the suit. In 2007, the trial court vacated the dismissal and reinstated the suit. Relators General Motors and Austin Chevrolet sought a writ of mandamus, arguing the 2007 order was void because it was issued after the expiration of the district court's plenary power. The Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ, holding that the 2003 dismissal was not void, and thus the district court's plenary power had expired, making the 2007 order void.

mandamusplenary powerdismissal for want of prosecutionabatementsubject-matter jurisdictionvoid ordersjudicial discretionadministrative remediesTexas appellate procedurecivil procedure
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Propane Gas Ass'n v. United States Department of Transportation

This case involves a challenge by plaintiffs National Propane Gas Association, Northwest Butane Gas Co., and Huffhines Gas, Inc. against the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA). The plaintiffs sought to stay and enjoin the enforcement of RSPA's "Final Rule" and its interpretation of the "Attendance Regulation," alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Both regulations pertain to safety requirements for cargo tank motor vehicles transporting liquefied compressed gases, particularly concerning emergency discharge control systems and operator presence during unloading. The court sided with the defendants, upholding both the Final Rule and RSPA's interpretation of the Attendance Regulation. The ruling affirmed that RSPA's actions were within its statutory authority, were not arbitrary or capricious, and complied with the RFA, based on reasoned decision-making in response to widespread industry noncompliance and potential safety risks.

Regulatory challengeadministrative lawhazardous materialscargo tanksliquefied gasespropanepublic safetyemergency discharge controloperator attendanceRSPA
References
23
Case No. 03-11-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2012

Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Tahereh Rokhti, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi// Cross Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity// Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Tahereh Rokhti, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi

This case involves cross-appeals concerning the constitutionality of cosmetology statutes and administrative rules as they apply to eyebrow threading in Texas. The appellants, who operate eyebrow threading businesses, argued that these regulations infringe upon their constitutional right to economic liberty under article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its officials, denying the appellants' motion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the challenged regulations are sufficiently rational and reasonable to meet constitutional due course requirements, falling within the state's police power for public health and safety concerns related to cosmetology services.

Eyebrow ThreadingCosmetology RegulationEconomic LibertyDue ProcessRational Basis ReviewPolice PowerSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionState AgenciesOccupational Licensing
References
61
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. 01-02-01105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2004

Marvin Frank Motor Co. v. Harris County

Marvin Frank Motor Company appealed a trial court judgment that awarded Harris County $19,001.22 in damages. Harris County, acting as a subrogee and self-insured workers' compensation carrier, sued Marvin Frank Motor Company to recover benefits paid to its injured employee, Mark Amato, following a vehicle accident. The appellant raised six points of error concerning the admissibility of evidence, jury instructions, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the damages award. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reviewed the trial court's decisions, including the admission of affidavits and testimony regarding medical expenditures and workers' compensation payments. Ultimately, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion by the trial court and affirmed the judgment in favor of Harris County.

Subrogation LawAppellate ReviewEvidentiary ChallengesJury Charge ErrorLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyTexas Civil PracticeCollateral Source DoctrineMedical Care CostsLost Wage Damages
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 4,022 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