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. 15-24-00124-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2024

ETC Field Services, LLC FKA. Regency Field Services, LLC v. Tema Oil and Gas Company

This case involves an appeal by ETC Field Services, LLC, challenging a remand order issued by the Business Court of Texas, Eighth Division. The original dispute, a breach of contract and negligence claim filed in 2017 by Tema Oil and Gas Co., was removed by ETC to the newly established Business Court in September 2024. Tema subsequently sought remand, arguing that the legislative act creating the Business Courts (H.B. 19) only applies to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2024. The Business Court agreed, ordering the case remanded to the 236th District Court of Tarrant County. ETC contends that H.B. 19 is a procedural statute and that its provisions for removal should apply retroactively to existing cases, asserting that the Business Court erred in its statutory interpretation and determination of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Business Court denied Tema's request for sanctions against ETC.

JurisdictionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationBusiness LawRemand OrderTexas CourtsCivil ProcedureRetroactivityContract DisputeOil and Gas Industry
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayer v. Oil Field Systems Corp.

Elfriede Mayer sued Oil Field Systems Corp. (OFS) and Integrated Energy Inc. (Integrated) alleging securities and common law fraud. Mayer, a limited partner in Mark Energy Partnerships (MEP), claimed misallocation of Integrated stock and insufficient disclosure regarding its arbitrary $10/share valuation, which affected partnership payouts. She also asserted misleading statements about an underwriter and stock performance. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Mayer was not deceived. The court found that Mayer had actual knowledge of the facts allegedly withheld, including the arbitrary stock valuation and the method of determining payout, through various disclosures provided by OFS and Integrated. Concluding that no deception occurred, a prerequisite for federal securities claims, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, also declining jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Securities FraudCommon Law FraudLimited PartnershipStock ValuationSummary JudgmentMisallocation of SharesDisclosure RequirementsMaterial FactFiduciary DutyFederal Securities Laws
References
18
Case No. 07-08-0160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Charlotte Welch, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of L v. Welch v. Hurd Oil Field Services, Inc.

Charlotte Welch, individually and as representative of the Estate of L.V. Welch, appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of Hurd Oil Field Service, Inc. The wrongful death suit alleged negligence, claiming Hurd's employee, Robert Browning, owed a duty of care to L.V. Welch, an inexperienced worker, and breached it, leading to L.V.'s death by heat exhaustion. The court reviewed the trial court's summary judgment de novo, focusing on whether Browning owed an assumed or other duty of care to L.V. Welch. The appellate court found that Browning did not assume such a duty, as his actions were limited to observing and reporting, not intervening, and that Texas law generally imposes no 'good Samaritan' duty. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimDuty of CareAssumed DutyGood Samaritan RuleHeat ExhaustionOil Field ServicesInexperienced WorkerCrane Operator
References
23
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanders Oil & Gas, Ltd. v. Big Lake Kay Constr., Inc.

Sanders Oil & Gas, Ltd. appealed a trial court judgment favoring Big Lake Kay Construction, Inc. for services rendered. The trial court awarded Big Lake $25,614.61 and $7,200.00 in attorney fees based on a breach of oral contract. Sanders Oil raised three issues on appeal: Big Lake's alleged failure to satisfy a condition precedent, insufficient evidence for the damages award, and spoliation of evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding no condition precedent, legally and factually sufficient evidence for damages, and no duty to preserve evidence for spoliation. The core dispute involved unpaid invoices for oil-field services and the subsequent factoring of these invoices to Security Business Capital, LLC.

Breach of Oral ContractSufficiency of EvidenceCondition PrecedentSpoliation of EvidenceDamages AwardFactoring InvoicesOil-field ServicesAppellate ReviewBench TrialAttorney Fees
References
44
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 540 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