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. 01–04–01277–CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

Zapata County and Zapata Independent School District v. Conocophillips Company on Its Own Behalf and as Successor–by–merger to Conoco Inc. (f/K/A Continental Oil Company, Inc.) Brandywine Industrial Gas, Inc. Phillips Petroleum Company El Paso Production Oil and Gas Company

This opinion consolidates 19 separate suits filed by various Texas counties and school districts (Taxing Units) against numerous oil and gas companies (Oil Companies). The Taxing Units alleged fraud and conspiracy to defraud through schemes to undervalue oil and gas reserves for ad valorem tax purposes, leading to underpayment of taxes. The trial courts granted the Oil Companies' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the cases because the Taxing Units failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Texas Tax Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Tax Code provides the exclusive means for addressing such claims, establishing a pervasive regulatory scheme through the Appraisal Review Board, and offering remedies like challenging valuations or back-appraising omitted property. The court held that the Taxing Units cannot bypass the comprehensive statutory scheme by recharacterizing tax disputes as common-law fraud cases.

Ad Valorem TaxProperty ValuationTax FraudAdministrative RemediesExclusive JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeAppraisal Review BoardOil and Gas TaxationMineral InterestsExhaustion of Remedies
References
14
Case No. Nos. 01-04-01277-CV to 01-04-01287-CV; 01-04-01326-CV to 01-04-01333-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

Jim Wells County v. EL PASO PRODUCTION OIL

This case involves multiple Texas counties and school districts (Taxing Units) alleging fraud and conspiracy against numerous oil and gas companies (Oil Companies). The Taxing Units claimed the Oil Companies undervalued oil and gas reserves for ad valorem tax purposes through various manipulative schemes, leading to underpayment of taxes. The trial court dismissed the lawsuits due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting that the Taxing Units failed to exhaust administrative remedies available under the Texas Tax Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Tax Code provides a comprehensive and exclusive regulatory scheme for addressing property appraisal disputes, including those involving alleged fraud, through the Appraisal Review Board, thereby divesting district courts of original jurisdiction.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxOil & GasFraudConspiracyUndervaluationExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesAppraisal Review BoardTax Code
References
17
Case No. 06-00061-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2015

A.J.P. Oil Company, LLC D/B/A Grapeland Fuel & BBQ, and Andrew J. Patton v. Velvin Oil Company, Inc.

Appellants (A.J.P. Oil Company, LLC, and Andrew J. Patton) appeal a summary judgment of $32,676.71 plus interest and fees, and the subsequent denial of their motion for new trial, in a suit brought by Velvin Oil Company, Inc. The core dispute stems from Velvin Oil's delivery of allegedly tainted diesel fuel to AJP in December 2013, which AJP contends caused substantial damages to customers' vehicles and their business. AJP argues the summary judgment was improper because their amended answer effectively controverted Velvin's sworn account claim, a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding payment, and the reasonableness of attorney's fees was demonstrably contested. Alternatively, AJP asserts that the Rusk County suit should have been abated due to a previously filed and dominant suit in Houston County involving the same parties and subject matter. Appellants therefore seek a reversal of the summary judgment and a remand for a new trial, or proper abatement of the current proceedings.

Summary JudgmentMotion for New TrialSworn AccountTainted FuelCompulsory CounterclaimAbatement of SuitAttorney's FeesContract DisputeCivil ProcedureAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. 01-21-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2023

GE Oil & Gas Pressure Control, L.P. v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.

This is an insurance subrogation case where Gemini Insurance Company, on behalf of its insured Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. (Carrizo), sued GE Oil & Gas Pressure Control, L.P. (GE) for damages from a well blowout. Carrizo alleged negligence, breach of contract, product liability, and breach of warranty. GE counterclaimed for Carrizo's negligence and indemnification. A jury found both parties negligent, but the trial court later disregarded Carrizo's negligence finding and awarded Carrizo over $2.5 million. On appeal, GE challenged Carrizo's standing, the disregard of the jury's verdict, and the enforceability of indemnity provisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding Carrizo had standing, GE failed to provide necessary expert testimony for Carrizo's negligence, and the indemnity clauses were unenforceable due to lack of signatory authority.

Oil and GasWell BlowoutNegligenceBreach of ContractProduct LiabilityBreach of WarrantyInsurance SubrogationIndemnity ClauseFair Notice RuleExpress Negligence
References
71
Case No. 05-21-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2023

Murphy Oil USA, Inc. D/B/A Murphy Oil USA 7350 v. Donnetta Stegall

Donnetta Stegall, an employee of Murphy Oil USA, Inc., sued her employer for premises liability after falling in the store's parking lot and injuring her ankle before her scheduled shift. Murphy Oil appealed the trial court's judgment in Stegall's favor, asserting that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA) provided the exclusive remedy, thereby barring Stegall's common law claim. The central legal question was whether Stegall's injury occurred within the "course and scope of employment," which would activate the TWCA's exclusive remedy provision, specifically considering the "going-to-and-from-work" exclusion and the "access doctrine" exception. The appellate court determined that the "access doctrine" did not apply because the parking lot was accessible to the general public, not exclusively designated for employees. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Stegall's injury was not work-related under the TWCA, and thus the exclusive remedy provision did not preclude her premises liability claim.

Premises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionCourse and Scope of EmploymentAccess DoctrineGoing-to-and-from-work RuleEmployer LiabilityPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United East & West Oil Co. v. Dyer

E. A. Dyer, an employee of United East & West Oil Company, sued for personal injuries sustained in a gas explosion at a lease-house where he lived and worked. Dyer claimed the explosion was due to the defendant's negligence in providing fluctuating gas pressure and failing to equip the gas line with a proper odorizing device. The defendant contended that Dyer was intoxicated, not in the course of his employment, and that a landlord-tenant relationship existed regarding the house, thus negating their duty to provide a safe environment. The jury found that Dyer was acting in the course of his employment, that the defendant's negligence regarding fluctuating gas pressure and the lack of a distinctive odor in the gas supply were proximate causes of the injuries, and that the defendant was not a subscriber under the Workmen’s Compensation Act covering Dyer. The judgment for Dyer was affirmed on appeal.

Gas ExplosionWorkplace InjuryNegligenceSafe Place to WorkEmployer LiabilityLandlord-Tenant RelationshipProximate CauseJury FindingsWorker's Compensation Non-SubscriberGas Pressure Fluctuation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 1942

United East and West Oil Co. v. Dyer

This case involves a common law action filed by Edwin Arthur Dyer against United East & West Oil Company for personal injuries sustained in a gas explosion at a lease house. Dyer, employed as a pumper, was injured while on duty in a company-provided bunk house used for both living and work purposes. The explosion was attributed to the defendant's negligence in supplying gas with inconsistent pressure, leading to a stove fire extinguishing and gas accumulation, which was then ignited by a kerosene lamp. The jury found that Dyer was acting within the scope of his employment and that the defendant's negligence proximately caused his injuries. The Commission of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Dyer, asserting that his occupancy of the house was integral to his service, making the employer liable despite arguments of a landlord-tenant relationship. The court also noted that common law defenses were unavailable to the company due to its failure to subscribe to the Workmen's Compensation Law.

Gas ExplosionWorkplace InjuryEmployer LiabilityNegligenceWorkers' Compensation ExemptionCommon Law TortCourse of EmploymentUnsafe PremisesOil and Gas IndustryBunkhouse
References
9
Case No. 04-14-00650-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Michael A. Cerny and Myra L. Cerny, Individually and as Next Friends of Cameron A. Cerny, a Child v. Marathon Oil Corporation, Marathon Oil EF LLC, and Plains Exploration & Producing Company

The Cernys sued Marathon Oil and Plains Exploration & Producing Company for private nuisance and negligence, alleging that toxic emissions from their oil and gas operations in the Eagle Ford Shale caused health issues and property damage. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that the Cernys presented no evidence of causation. On appeal, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court determined that the Cernys' claims were toxic torts requiring strict causation standards, including expert testimony to prove general and specific causation and to exclude other plausible causes, which the Cernys failed to provide. The appellate court also upheld the striking of the Cernys' summary judgment evidence.

Toxic TortNuisanceNegligenceSummary JudgmentCausationExpert TestimonyEpidemiological StudiesOil and Gas OperationsEnvironmental ContaminationProperty Damage
References
22
Case No. 18-0656
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2019

Creative Oil & Gas Operating, Llc v. Lona Hills Ranch, Llc

This case concerns the application of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) to counterclaims in an oil and gas lease dispute. Petitioners, Creative Oil & Gas, LLC and Creative Oil & Gas Operating, LLC, filed counterclaims against Respondent, Lona Hills Ranch, LLC, alleging false communications to third parties about lease termination and breach of contract by initiating litigation without proper notice. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed in part and reversed in part the appellate court's judgment. The Court ruled that private business communications about a single well's production were not matters of public concern under the TCPA's free speech provision. However, the Operator's counterclaim regarding the Ranch's legal filings fell under the TCPA's right to petition but was dismissed as the Operator was not a party to the lease.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAAnti-SLAPPOil and GasLease DisputeCounterclaimsFree SpeechRight to PetitionPublic ConcernPrivate Communications
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2009

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc. and Townsend Oil Corporation on behalf of ten claimants, alleging sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants moved to compel the production of claimants' medical and mental health records. The court addressed the psychotherapist-patient privilege, finding that Claimant #2, who saw mental health professionals, did not waive her privilege because she only asserted a "garden variety" emotional distress claim and did not intend to use privileged communications at trial. The court clarified that the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not extend to medical, non-mental health providers. For seven claimants, including the Charging Party and Claimant #2, the court ordered the disclosure of medical records relevant to emotional distress, limiting the scope to one year prior to, through one year subsequent to, their employment with Nichols, subject to a protective order to safeguard privacy.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentDiscovery MotionPsychotherapist PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeEmotional DistressWaiverFederal Civil ProcedureCivil Rights ActHostile Work Environment
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 530 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