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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2008

Barnett v. Schwartz

The plaintiffs sued their attorneys for legal malpractice concerning a lease and purchase option agreement for commercial property. The property was classified as an inactive hazardous waste disposal site, a fact the attorneys, Jeffrey Schwartz and his law firm, knew but allegedly failed to disclose to the plaintiffs, advising them to enter an "as is" agreement. Two years later, the plaintiffs discovered the environmental contamination. The attorneys then reportedly advised them to continue paying rent and exercise the purchase option, assuring a quick cleanup, which ultimately took three years. A jury found the defendants liable for malpractice for failing to inform the plaintiffs about the environmental issues and the implications of the "as is" clause. The appellate court upheld the jury's findings on liability and damages but modified the judgment to include an award of prejudgment interest to the plaintiffs.

Legal MalpracticeProfessional NegligenceEnvironmental ContaminationAs Is ClauseProperty LeasePurchase OptionProximate CauseDamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. 05-18-01513-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2020

Rebecca Potter, Individually and as Next Friend of Austyn Vasquez, a Minor, and Richard Potter v. HP Texas 1 LLC D/B/A HPA TX LLC

Rebecca and Richard Potter sued HP Texas 1 LLC (HPA parties) and Coats Group Real Estate Co. (Coats) after suffering illnesses due to toxic mold in a leased home with an option to purchase. They challenged the trial court's take-nothing summary judgment on claims including fraudulent concealment, fraud, Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, negligence per se, and breach of contract. The core issue before the appellate court was the enforceability of an "as is" provision in the residential lease with an option to purchase. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the "as is" clause was enforceable and negated the causation element of the Potters' claims. This decision was based on findings that the conditions were visible or discoverable by inspection, and there was no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment by the appellees.

Rent-to-ownResidential LeaseAs Is ClauseFraudulent ConcealmentDeceptive Trade Practices ActNegligent MisrepresentationNegligenceBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentCausation
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Startex First Equipment, Ltd. v. Aelina Enterprises Inc.

This case involves a dispute over the ownership of commercial real property in Bastrop County, Texas. Appellant Startex First Equipment, Ltd., appealed a trial court’s summary judgment that granted title to appellee Aelina Enterprises, Inc. The core issue was whether Startex's right of first refusal, originally granted to Pioneer Oil Company in a 1970 Lease and Operating Agreement, survived subsequent property sales and was superior to Aelina's later-acquired purchase option. The appellate court determined that the right of first refusal, explicitly stating that sales were 'subject to the terms of this lease,' indeed survived previous property transfers and was properly assigned to Startex. Consequently, the court found Startex's right to be superior to Aelina's purchase option, reversing the district court's decision and rendering judgment in favor of Startex.

real propertyright of first refusalpurchase optioncontract interpretationsummary judgmentappealproperty ownershipcommercial leaseassignability of rightsconstructive notice
References
17
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 34431[U]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2007

Sykes v. RFD Third Avenue 1 Associates, LLC

The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's decision to dismiss a negligent misrepresentation claim brought by condominium purchasers against Cosentini Associates, the mechanical engineering firm that designed the building's HVAC systems. The dissent contends that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a 'special relationship' with Cosentini, akin to privity, necessary for such a claim. It highlights that Cosentini provided HVAC descriptions for the offering plan, knowing purchasers would rely on them. The dissenting judge differentiates the current case from Parrott v Coopers & Lybrand and upholds the precedent set in Board of Mgrs. of Astor Terrace Condominium v Schuman, Lichtenstein, Claman & Efron, arguing that Parrott did not implicitly overrule Astor Terrace. The dissent concludes that the plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

Negligent MisrepresentationProfessional MalpracticePrivity of ContractSpecial RelationshipOffering PlanHVAC SystemsCondominium LawMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
10
Case No. No. 92 Civ. 5130; No. 94 Civ. 3809; No. 92 CV-511
Regular Panel Decision

In re Industrial Diamonds Antitrust Litigation

This consolidated multidistrict litigation addresses antitrust claims brought by purchasers of industrial diamond products. Plaintiffs allege that General Electric Co. and De Beers entities conspired to fix and stabilize prices in violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. The court partially granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3). A class was certified for direct purchasers of list-price products, with the court determining that common questions of conspiracy and impact predominated for this group. The decision outlines a bifurcated trial approach to manage liability and damages, reserving the option to decertify or create subclasses for damages if necessary.

AntitrustClass ActionPrice FixingSherman ActClayton ActMultidistrict LitigationClass CertificationFraudulent ConcealmentIndustrial Diamond ProductsIndirect Purchasers
References
35
Case No. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wells v. Dotson

Appellants Keith Wells, Andria (Medley) Stewart, Blanche Phillips, and Carrie Sterling appealed a trial court’s summary judgment entered in favor of Appellees Claude Dotson, Jr. and Faye Dotson. The core dispute stemmed from a 'Lease with Options to Purchase' agreement between Claude Dotson, Jr. and the deceased Mildred Snow. Appellees sought specific performance of the option, while Appellants counterclaimed, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The appellate court found the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of Texas Probate Code, section 27, and regarding the affirmative defense of limitations for Appellants’ counterclaims. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment concerning the affirmative defense of ratification as it pertained to Appellants' fraud in the inducement claim. Additionally, the court concluded that Faye Dotson lacked standing to pursue the breach of contract claim. Consequently, the appellate decision was a mix of affirming, reversing, rendering, remanding, and dismissing.

Property LawContract LawSummary Judgment AppealStandingStatute of LimitationsRatificationFraudulent InducementSpecific PerformanceProbate LawReal Estate Option
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

1199seiu Nat'l Benefit Fund v. Allergan, Inc. (In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig.)

This multi-district litigation addresses defendant Allergan's alleged anticompetitive efforts to delay FDA approval of generic versions of its dry-eye medication, Restasis®. Plaintiffs, comprising Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and End-Payor Plaintiffs, contend Allergan engaged in various unlawful strategies, including filing sham citizen petitions, defrauding the USPTO to secure "second-wave" patents, wrongfully listing these patents, initiating sham patent infringement lawsuits, and transferring patents to a Native American tribe to invoke sovereign immunity. Allergan moved to dismiss the consolidated complaints, asserting that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that its actions caused any delay in generic market entry. The court, however, denied Allergan's motion, concluding that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that Allergan's aggressive and persistent tactics could have effectively delayed competition.

AntitrustPharmaceutical IndustryGeneric DrugsFDA ApprovalPatent InfringementCitizen PetitionsHatch-Waxman ActMonopolyRestasisDry Eye Medication
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Symetra Life Insurance v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd.

This case involves the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) seeking a permanent injunction against Rapid Settlements, Ltd., a factoring company. NASP alleged that Rapid Settlements improperly uses arbitration and enforces rights of first refusal and security interests in structured settlement payment rights without state-court approval, thereby circumventing state Structured Settlement Protection Acts (SSPAs). The court found that Rapid Settlements' practices illegally circumvent the SSPAs, cloud title to annuitants' payment rights, raise transaction costs for NASP members, and place them at a competitive disadvantage. The court rejected Rapid Settlements' defenses, including preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act and an 'unclean hands' argument against NASP. The court granted NASP's application, permanently enjoining Rapid Settlements from using arbitration or enforcing unapproved rights of first refusal and security interests to effectuate transfers of structured settlement payment rights.

Structured SettlementsFactoring CompaniesAnnuity PaymentsArbitrationInjunctionState LawFederal LawStructured Settlement Protection ActsRights of First RefusalSecurity Interests
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2001

In Re Dibiase

The case involves a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor, Gregory Dibiase, and trustee Helen G. Schwartz. The central issue is the exemptability and turnover of employee stock options granted to Dibiase by Tesoro Petroleum Corporation. Dibiase claimed the options as exempt under the federal "wild card" provision, valuing them at zero. The trustee objected, arguing the options had value and were property of the estate. The court rejected Dibiase's argument that the options had not "vested" and therefore had no value, asserting that Texas law recognizes stock options as present property interests even if subject to future contingencies. The court also rejected the Allen allocation formula, which sought to exclude a portion of the options based on post-petition efforts, finding it legally flawed. Ultimately, the court sustained the trustee's objection to exemptions, concluding the entire option belonged to the estate, but granted turnover only for the proportion the trustee had specifically pleaded for.

BankruptcyStock OptionsExemptionsTurnoverProperty of the EstateWild Card ExemptionVested RightsConditions PrecedentConditions SubsequentChapter 7
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 600 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