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. 03-02-00403-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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pretzer v. Motor Vehicle Board

This case concerns an appeal by Randy Pretzer, Scott Bossier, and Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. d/b/a Bossier Country (collectively, "Bossier") against sanctions imposed by the Motor Vehicle Board and Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation ("Board"). The Board had imposed civil penalties for violations of sections 4.06(a)(5) and 4.06(a)(6) of the Texas Motor Vehicle Code. The district court affirmed in part, overruled in part, and reversed and remanded in part the Board's final order. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment in part, reversed and rendered in part concerning the Board's power to bar Pretzer from the motor vehicle industry, and remanded the cause for further proceedings regarding the redetermination of civil penalties based on the correct jurisdictional scope of section 4.06(a)(5) for used vehicle sales before June 8, 1995.

Texas Motor Vehicle CodeStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawCivil PenaltiesFraudulent PracticesDealer LicensingNon-licensee SanctionsUsed Vehicle SalesSubstantial Evidence ReviewEqual Protection
References
50
Case No. 03-21-00239-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

Star Houston, Inc.// Cross-Appellant,Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC, and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles// Star Houston, Inc., and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

Star Houston, Inc. and Volvo Car USA, LLC appealed a Final Order of the Motor Vehicle Board. The administrative proceeding involved Star protesting Volvo's termination of its franchise and alleging violations of Occupations Code chapter 2301 by Volvo's Dealer Incentive Programs. Star and Volvo petitioned for judicial review, which was subsequently removed to the Court of Appeals. The court rejected the Board's standing challenge against Volvo's cross-appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusions that Volvo's CSI and SSI programs violated Occupations Code sections 2301.467(a)(1) and 2301.468, upholding that they required adherence to unreasonable sales/service standards and treated dealers unfairly. Additionally, the court rejected Star's claims that other incentive programs violated various statutory provisions. Ultimately, the Motor Vehicle Board's Final Order was affirmed.

Texas Court of AppealsMotor Vehicle BoardFranchise TerminationDealer Incentive ProgramsOccupations CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandingSubstantial Evidence RuleCustomer Satisfaction Index (CSI)
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Love v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co.

The case involves David and Latusha Love's lawsuit against Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company for the wrongful denial of their homeowners insurance claim. The denial was based on alleged material post-loss misrepresentations and a civil arson defense after a fire damaged their home. Allstate moved for summary judgment, arguing their policy was voided. The court denied Allstate's motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding Mr. Love's intent to deceive and whether the fire was incendiary in origin, citing conflicting evidence from fire reports and expert opinions.

Homeowners InsuranceInsurance Claim DenialSummary Judgment MotionMaterial MisrepresentationIntent to DeceiveCivil Arson DefenseIncendiary Fire OriginCircumstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationJury Question
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Stamm v. PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning plaintiffs Thoburn, III (Toby) and Cannon, who, as young children, were present during a car accident in 1985 that left their mother with severe and permanent brain injuries. They subsequently filed a lawsuit against their father, Thoburn M. Stamm, Jr., and PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC, alleging physical and emotional injuries, specifically emotional distress and post-traumatic stress syndrome, under the 'zone of danger' theory. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged emotional injuries were not proximately caused by the direct observation of their mother's serious injury during the accident. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the complaint with prejudice, concluding that plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their zone of danger claims.

Zone of DangerNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalCar AccidentEmotional InjuryParental ConsortiumPsychiatric EvaluationEvidentiary StandardsProximate Causation
References
5
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. 2-08-132-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2009

Elizabeth Santana, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rojelio Santana, and as Next Friend of Diana Santana, Rojelio Santana, Jr., Marissa Santana, Pauline Santana and Frederico Santana v. Arpin America Moving System, LLC and Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc.

Elizabeth Santana appealed the trial court's summary judgments for Arpin America Moving System, LLC (AAMS) and Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc. (PAVL). Her husband, Rojelio Santana, an independent contractor, was killed in a truck accident while an unlicensed "lumper" he hired was driving a vehicle owned by AAMS and leased by PAVL. Santana alleged negligence, negligence per se, res ipsa loquitur, negligent entrustment, and gross negligence against AAMS and PAVL. The court found that Rojelio Santana was an independent contractor and not driving at the time of the accident, and that the "lumpers" were not employees of AAMS or PAVL, rendering Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) doctrines inapplicable. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, finding no evidence of causation linking any alleged negligence or FMCSR violations by AAMS or PAVL to the accident, nor any basis for negligent entrustment or res ipsa loquitur.

Summary Judgment AppealNegligence Per SeFMCSRStatutory EmployeeVicarious LiabilityNegligent EntrustmentProximate CauseIndependent ContractorWrongful DeathCommercial Vehicle Accident
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 1985

Linares v. Spencer-Cameron Leasing Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants, Time Moving and Storage (employer) and Spencer-Cameron Leasing Corp. (vehicle lessor), in a personal injury action. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the Workers' Compensation Law provided the plaintiff's exclusive remedy against both the employer and the vehicle owner, as the injury occurred while the plaintiff was a passenger in an employer-leased vehicle driven by a co-employee. The court also affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the complaint and bill of particulars, citing the significant delay (nearly four years after inception of the lawsuit) and completion of all discovery.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyCo-employee NegligenceLeased Vehicle LiabilityAppellate AffirmationMotion to Amend PleadingsBill of ParticularsDelay in Litigation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Time Moving & Storage

Plaintiff Leonor Dátil Perez, acting pro se, sued Time Moving & Storage for $3.9 million in property damage to her newspaper collection, allegedly due to the defendant's negligence. A key dispute arose regarding the presence of Joseph Candella, a principal of Time Moving, during the deposition of the defendant's employees. The motion court initially barred Candella from the depositions, citing plaintiff's claims of intimidation. However, the Appellate Division reversed this order, ruling that the plaintiff's assertions did not meet the 'unusual circumstances' standard required to exclude a party from a deposition under CPLR 3103(a). The court emphasized a party's right to be present per CPLR 3113(c) and Candella's role in assisting counsel and trial strategy.

DepositionsWitness ExclusionCorporate RepresentationPro Se LitigantCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCPLR 3113CPLR 3103IntimidationDiscovery Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bekins Moving & Storage Co. v. Williams

Jean Williams sued Bekins Moving & Storage for damages sustained when her household belongings were damaged during a move, which Bekins had subcontracted. Williams alleged negligence, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), and violations of the Texas Insurance Code, stemming from misrepresentations and inadequate handling of her claim. The jury found in favor of Williams on most claims. On appeal, the court reformed the judgment, eliminating recoveries for negligence and mental anguish, and striking treble damages under the Insurance Code. However, it affirmed the awards under the DTPA and the Insurance Code, along with attorney's fees, ultimately reducing the total monetary award but upholding Bekins' liability under multiple statutes.

Moving IndustryProperty LossConsumer ProtectionContract BreachStatute of LimitationsInsurance ClaimsWaiver DoctrineDamages CalculationAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil Practice
References
56
Showing 1-10 of 5,417 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