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. 07-05-0110-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2005

$1,364.00, One 1997 Ford Thunderbird, One Phillips VCR Television, One Remington Monitor and Cameras, One Sentinel Intercom and One Set of Tanita Scales v. State of Texas

Alvin L. Gaither, an inmate, appealed a trial court's forfeiture order concerning cash and various personal items. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo issued a directive for Gaither to pay a $125 filing fee within ten days. Gaither failed to comply with this order. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Clerk's notice regarding the filing fee.

Appeal DismissedForfeiture OrderFiling FeePro Se AppellantAppellate ProcedureNon-complianceTexas Court of AppealsInmate AppellantCivil ProcedureJudicial Dismissal
References
4
Case No. 14-04-00888-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2007

Tello v. Bank One, N.A.

Pablo Tello appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Bank One, N.A. and Banc One Acceptance Corp. Tello had entered a vehicle lease agreement which was later assigned to the Bank One entities. After Tello allegedly defaulted on payments, Bank One sued for breach of contract. Tello counterclaimed for DTPA violations, common-law fraud, and breach of contract, asserting he was fraudulently induced into the lease by a salesperson due to his inability to read English. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Bank, awarding damages and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, finding Tello had waived most of his appellate issues due to inadequate briefing and failure to properly present them in the trial court. A dissenting opinion argued that Bank One failed to sufficiently prove its damages.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractVehicle Lease AgreementDTPA ViolationsCommon-Law FraudAffirmative DefensesFraudulent InducementEquitable EstoppelAppellate ProcedureWaiver of Arguments
References
39
Case No. M2003-00585-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2004

Crew One Productions, Inc. v. State of Tennessee

The State of Tennessee appealed a Claims Commission decision that found Crew One Productions, Inc. was exempt from state employment tax under a federal safe harbor provision, Section 530. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that Tennessee's Employment Security Law, though to be construed in pari materia with federal law, does not mandate the adoption of every federal relief provision, especially those not codified as part of the Internal Revenue Code. The court concluded that Tennessee is not bound by federal Section 530 determinations and reinstated the Department of Labor and Workforce Development's assessment of employment taxes against Crew One.

Employment TaxIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationFederal Safe HarborSection 530Statutory InterpretationState Employment LawTennesseeTax LiabilityAppellate Review
References
34
Case No. 14-10-00823-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2011

Phillip Michelsen v. Lorel Jones, Jr.

This appeal stems from a 2002 car accident where Phillip Michelsen hit Lourel Jones, Jr.'s vehicle. A jury awarded Jones $32,500 for damages including medical expenses and lost earning capacity. Michelsen admitted liability for the collision but contested causation of injuries. Harris County intervened, seeking reimbursement for workers' compensation benefits paid to Jones. Michelsen appeals the denial of his motion to modify the judgment, arguing for a settlement credit or offset based on payments from Harris County and the one satisfaction rule, and concerning pre-judgment interest. The appellate court affirms the trial court's judgment, finding Michelsen failed to prove entitlement to the asserted credits or that the one satisfaction rule applied, and did not provide evidence for tolling pre-judgment interest.

Car AccidentDamages AwardSettlement CreditWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSubrogation ClaimOne Satisfaction RulePre-Judgment InterestMotion to Modify JudgmentAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2010

Gunther v. Capital One, N.A.

Plaintiff Eric Gunther filed a class action against Capital One Bank and Capital One Financial Corporation, alleging improper banking fees. Gunther, a former North Fork Bank customer, became a Capital One Bank account holder after a merger. He claimed Capital One Bank increased fees, including ATM withdrawal and overdraft fees, without proper notice, charged 'Undeliverable Mail Fees,' deceptively marketed 'free checking,' and failed to provide fee schedule notifications. The Court dismissed most of Gunther's breach of contract claims, except for the 'Undeliverable Mail Fees' claim. Claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment were also dismissed. A New York General Business Law § 349 claim was dismissed with leave to replead. The Court denied dismissal for the declaratory judgment claim against Capital One Bank. All claims against Capital One Financial were dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to establish direct or indirect liability through corporate veil piercing.

Consumer Class ActionBanking FeesBreach of ContractMotion to DismissCorporate Veil PiercingTruth in Savings Act (TISA)Unjust EnrichmentDeclaratory JudgmentStanding to SueNew York General Business Law
References
33
Case No. 04-18-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2019

One Hundred Seventy-One Thousand One Hundred and 00/100 ($171,100.00) in U.S. Currency and One (1) 2012 Volkswagen Jetta, VIN3VWDP7AJ9CM333910 v. State

This is an appeal from a post-answer default judgment in favor of the State of Texas in a forfeiture case. Appellant Mirsha Contla challenged the trial court's denial of her motion for continuance and the overruling of her motion for new trial by operation of law. The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the denial of the motion for continuance, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding the motion for new trial, holding that Contla satisfied all three elements of the Craddock test. The court concluded that her failure to appear was not intentional, she presented a meritorious defense, and a new trial would not cause undue delay or injury to the State, thus reversing and remanding the cause for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentMotion for ContinuanceMotion for New TrialCraddock TestAbuse of DiscretionForfeiture ProceedingsAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureTexas LawConscious Indifference
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2006

D.I.S., LLC v. Sagos

This case concerns an appeal by a mortgagee from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which granted the mortgagor's petition to direct the mortgagee to accept a specific sum in full satisfaction of the mortgage debt and issue a satisfaction of mortgage. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, ruling that the mortgagor's tender of payment of the entire mortgage principal plus interest, in response to the mortgagee's acceleration of debt, did not constitute a 'prepayment' within the meaning of the mortgage's prepayment clause. Consequently, the mortgagee was precluded from assessing a prepayment penalty as no such provision was specified in the mortgage. Additionally, the court declined to consider the mortgagee’s remaining contention regarding the acceleration clause because it was raised for the first time in her reply brief.

Mortgage LawPrepayment PenaltyMortgage Debt SatisfactionAcceleration of DebtRPAPL 1921Appellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureNassau County Supreme CourtContractual ProvisionsTender of Payment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crew One Productions, Inc. v. State

This is an employment tax case where the State of Tennessee appealed a decision by the Tennessee Claims Commission. The Commission had ruled that Crew One Productions was not liable for Tennessee employment tax, citing a federal safe harbor provision known as section 530. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that Tennessee is not bound by the federal safe harbor provision. The court emphasized that while Tennessee's Employment Security Law is to be construed 'in pari materia' with federal law, this does not require incorporating every federal relief provision, especially those designed as temporary measures for federal enforcement issues.

Employment TaxFederal Safe HarborSection 530Independent Contractor ClassificationState Employment Tax LiabilityStatutory InterpretationIn Pari MateriaUnemployment CompensationTax AppealWorkers Classification
References
20
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08303
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2017

Prevost v. One City Block LLC

Plaintiff Ronald Prevost, a laborer, was injured after slipping on a loose sprinkler pipe at a construction site owned by One City Block LLC. He and his wife sued One City for common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. One City then commenced a third-party action against Island Fire Sprinkler, Inc., the subcontractor responsible for installing the sprinkler system, seeking contractual and common-law indemnification and alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. The Supreme Court denied various summary judgment motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting One City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and granting One City's claim for contractual indemnification by Island Fire. The court also denied Island Fire's motion for summary judgment dismissing One City's claim against it for contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. Finally, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of One City's motion for post-note-of-issue discovery seeking additional independent medical examinations of plaintiff.

Construction accidentLabor LawPremises liabilitySummary judgmentContractual indemnificationBreach of contractInsurance procurementPost-note-of-issue discoveryIndependent medical examinationAppellate procedure
References
16
Case No. 05-14-00403-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2015

Profinity, LLC v. One Technologies, L.P.

A lawsuit initiated by One Technologies, L.P. (OT) against Profinity, LLC and former employee Chad D. Ertel, alleging breach of a non-compete agreement. Profinity counterclaimed for antitrust violations under the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act (TFEAA). A jury ruled against OT's claims and in favor of Profinity's counterclaim. The trial court subsequently granted OT's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) regarding Profinity's counterclaim. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of OT's JNOV for its breach of contract claim due to unproven damages. However, the court vacated the JNOV granting for Profinity's counterclaim, instead dismissing the counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction, citing the TFEAA's inability to address extraterritorial injuries and the applicability of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

AntitrustNon-compete agreementBreach of contractTFEAANoerr-Pennington doctrineJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictExtraterritorialityAppellate jurisdictionTrade secretsEmployment law
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 12,227 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