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. 11-07-00268-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2009

Allstar Refinishing & Collision Center, Inc. v. Paula Rosas

Paula Rosas sued Allstar Refinishing & Collision Center, Inc. for conversion after Allstar failed to return her vehicle following repairs despite her payment. Allstar claimed a right to retain the vehicle under a statutory possessory lien, arguing she owed for a rental car. The trial court granted summary judgment for Rosas. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the lien under Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 70.001 applies only to repair costs, not rental expenses. The court also noted Rosas had the right to direct her payment and Allstar failed to provide evidence for its mitigation of damages defense.

ConversionPossessory LienStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentDebtor's Right to Direct PaymentMitigation of DamagesVehicle Repair DisputeAppellate ReviewTexas Property CodeCivil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

DeGrasse, J., dissents from the majority's premise, arguing that the reckless disregard standard of care set forth under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies to the case. The case involves a 2010 collision between a plaintiff's vehicle and a mechanical street sweeper operated by defendant Robert P. Falcaro, a city sanitation worker. The dissent asserts that Rules of the City of New York (34 RCNY) § 4-02 (d) (1) (iv) incorporated this standard for highway workers, a category Falcaro falls under. It refutes the majority's interpretation of 34 RCNY § 4-02 (d) (1) (iii), stating it provides no standard of care and thus does not contradict the application of the reckless disregard standard. The dissenting judge concludes that summary judgment was properly granted by the court below, as there was no evidence of Falcaro's intentional conduct committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm, and would affirm the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendants’ cross motion.

Reckless disregardVehicle and Traffic LawStreet sweeperHighway workerSummary judgmentMunicipal lawNew York City RulesStandard of careDissentCollision
References
6
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. 01-09-00730-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2011

Robert D. Lyall, Individually and Lyall Brothers Collision Center v. Ermenegildo Bermudez

Ermenegildo Bermudez sued Robert D. Lyall and Lyall Brothers Collision Center for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) and other causes, including conversion and violations of the Texas Property Code, after his truck was repossessed over alleged storage fees. The trial court ruled in favor of Bermudez, awarding treble damages for wrongful repossession and unconscionable conduct. Lyall appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for the treble damages award. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support that Lyall engaged in knowing, unconscionable conduct by repossessing Bermudez's truck without proper notice, using it for personal purposes, and failing to follow legal procedures for disposing of the vehicle.

DTPADeceptive Trade PracticesConsumer ProtectionWrongful RepossessionStorage FeesMechanic's LienTexas Property CodeTreble DamagesUnconscionable ConductLegal Sufficiency
References
12
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olivares, Emilio v. Alfonso Mares, and Multi-Building, Inc.

Emilio Olivares, an injured construction worker, sued Alfonso Mares and Multi-Building, Inc., alleging negligence and premises liability after falling from an unsecured joist. Following a jury trial, the court awarded damages but reduced Olivares's past lost wages. On appeal, Olivares challenged the exclusion of a subcontract, the jury charge focusing on premises liability, the omission of Multi-Building from a negligent activity question, and the reduction of the lost wages award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury charge, the exclusion of the subcontract, or the reduction of lost wages, and dismissed Multi-Building's conditional cross-points as moot.

NegligencePremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLost WagesJury Charge ErrorEvidence ExclusionSubcontract DisputeTexas LawAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
28
Case No. 526927
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Matter of Curry v. Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles

In Matter of Curry v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, petitioner Joseph P. Curry appealed a judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 petition. Curry's driver's license was revoked in 2012 due to a fifth alcohol-related driving offense. His 2017 application for relicensing and a hardship exception was denied by the Department of Motor Vehicles' Driver Improvement Bureau and affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Board. Curry challenged this denial as arbitrary and capricious, citing rehabilitation efforts and medical needs for a license. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, finding the Commissioner's denial was not arbitrary or capricious given Curry's history of multiple relapses, traffic infractions, and an incomplete DWI evaluation, despite his claims of sobriety and medical appointments.

Driver's License RevocationAlcohol-Related OffensesHardship ExceptionCPLR article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardDepartment of Motor VehiclesReissuance DiscretionRehabilitation EffortsMedical Limitations
References
4
Case No. 03-14-00397-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

American Multi-Cinema, Inc.// Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas// Cross-Appellee, American Multi-Cinema, Inc.

This case is an appeal concerning whether American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (AMC) sells 'goods' when exhibiting movies, impacting its eligibility for a cost-of-goods-sold deduction under Texas franchise tax law. The Cross-Appellants (Comptroller and Attorney General) contend that AMC sells intangible property (a license), an experience, or a service, none of which qualify as 'goods' as defined by the Texas Tax Code. They argue that AMC does not produce films, but merely exhibits them, thus not meeting the criteria for the deduction. The brief also addresses the applicability of 2007 and 2013 amendments to the franchise tax statute, asserting they are not retroactive to the 2008 and 2009 tax years at issue. The Cross-Appellants seek to reverse the trial court's decision that AMC is entitled to the deduction.

Franchise TaxCost of Goods SoldTexas Tax CodeMovie ExhibitionIntangible PropertyServicesTax DeductionStatutory InterpretationAppellate LawTax Law
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 1,247 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