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. 03-10-00358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2012

Russell H. Fish, III, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Texas Legislative Service, Partnership v. Texas Legislative Service, Partnership Andrew K. Fish And John C. Fish

This case concerns a dispute within the Texas Legislative Service (TLS) partnership, where Russell H. Fish, III, sued his brothers Andrew K. Fish and John C. Fish for alleged breaches of their partnership agreement, fiduciary duties, and intellectual property misappropriation. Russell claimed Andrew and John improperly set their compensation, denied him access to partnership records, and violated terms regarding the sale of their mother's partnership interest. Furthermore, Russell alleged that Andrew competed with TLS by operating similar businesses in other states and misused TLS's trade secrets and software. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Andrew and John on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed most of the trial court's rulings but reversed and remanded the breach of contract claim related to partner compensation, citing a partial limitations bar and a remaining factual dispute regarding waiver.

Partnership AgreementBreach of ContractFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWaiverTrade SecretsCopyright InfringementPartner CompensationAccess to Records
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gulf Shores Council of Co-Owners, Inc. v. Raul Cantu No. 3 Family Ltd. Partnership

The Fourth Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's judgment concerning a dispute between the Gulf Shores Council of Co-Owners, Inc., and the Raul S. Cantu No. 3 Family Limited Partnership. The core issue was the Council's right to levy fees on unit owners who rented outside the designated rent pool and to prohibit the use of independent leasing agents. The trial court had ruled these actions unenforceable and awarded damages for tortious interference. However, the appellate court found that the Council's fees and prohibitions were reasonable and justified under the condominium's Declaration and Bylaws, and that they had a legal right to interfere with the Partnership's contracts. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the damages awarded to the Partnership and rendered judgment in favor of the Council for unpaid assessments and attorney fees.

Condominium LawProperty RightsRental ManagementHomeowners AssociationTortious InterferenceContract LawAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentUnpaid AssessmentsAttorney Fees
References
20
Case No. 14-05-01035-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2006

in Re Autotainment Partners Limited Partnership D/B/A Planet Ford and Worldwide Autotainment Inc.

Relators Autotainment Partners Limited Partnership d/b/a Planet Ford and Worldwide Autotainment, Inc. sought a writ of mandamus against Respondent Judge Sharolyn P. Wood. The relators challenged the judge's denial of their motion to compel arbitration in an underlying suit filed by Solomon Israel, a former employee. Israel, who was injured while working for non-subscriber Planet Ford, had signed an agreement to arbitrate disputes. The appellate court reviewed whether a valid arbitration agreement existed, if Israel's negligence claim fell within its scope, and if the McCarran-Ferguson Act reverse preempted the Federal Arbitration Act. Finding a valid agreement encompassing the dispute and rejecting the reverse preemption argument, the court concluded the trial court abused its discretion. The petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, ordering the trial court to compel arbitration.

MandamusArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActMcCarran-Ferguson ActWorkers' Compensation ActEmployment LawNegligence ClaimContract EnforcementJudicial ReviewTrial Court Discretion
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

950 Corbindale, L.P. v. Kotts Capital Holdings Ltd. Partnership

This accelerated interlocutory appeal stems from the denial of a motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. The dispute involves three limited partnerships formed in 2004 for real estate acquisition and management. The partnership agreements contained a broad arbitration clause, but limited arbitrators to awarding "compensatory damages only." Appellees, Kotts Capital Holdings, LP and Kotts Capital Holdings, Inc., sought declaratory relief in district court after an offer to purchase the properties was rejected. Appellants, including 950 Corbindale, L.P. and others, moved to compel arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the agreement's scope. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the court held the arbitration agreements were valid and the dispute, including the request for declaratory relief, was within the scope of arbitration, despite the damages limitation. The court reasoned that "compensatory damages only" modified the type of damages, not the arbitrator's authority to grant other forms of relief. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration.

Arbitration ClausePartnership DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to CompelInterlocutory AppealContract InterpretationScope of ArbitrationCompensatory DamagesAppellate ProcedureWaiver of Rights
References
11
Case No. DC-13-04564-L
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

in Re: Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc. and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault and related damages, including mental anguish. Her designated psychologist, Dr. William Flynn, conducted a mental examination. Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc., and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership sought an independent psychological examination of the plaintiff by their expert, Dr. Lisa Clayton. The district court initially denied this motion, and subsequently denied the defendants' joint motion for reconsideration. This mandamus record documents the appellate review of this discovery dispute.

Sexual AssaultMental AnguishPsychological ExaminationDiscovery DisputeForensic PsychologyPremises LiabilityMandamus PetitionCivil ProcedureExpert WitnessTexas Law
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MBB Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (In re Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.)

This is an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order denying summary judgment for the appellant, MBB Realty Limited Partnership, and granting it for the appellee, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. The dispute centered on a commercial lease, which was amended to include percentage rent and later involved A&P's plan to further downsize, leading to a contested letter agreement regarding new percentage rent terms and property alterations. The Bankruptcy Court found the letter agreement void for lack of consideration, despite A&P's subsequent payments, a decision MBB appealed. The District Court affirmed, concluding that MBB's alleged consent to exterior changes or store downsizing did not constitute valid consideration, as these actions were either not explicitly agreed upon or already permissible under the existing lease terms, thus rendering the agreement unenforceable. Consequently, arguments about ratification or the satisfaction of conditions precedent were deemed irrelevant for a void contract.

Contract LawConsiderationParol Evidence RuleSummary JudgmentBankruptcy AppealCommercial LeasePercentage RentLease AmendmentRatificationGood Faith and Fair Dealing
References
64
Case No. 07-15-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2014

Mark P. Hardwick, Individually and D/B/A Mark P. Hardwick Oil and Gas Properties and Mark P. Hardwick, LLC v. Smith Energy Company, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Smith Energy Resource Oil, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and on Behalf of Smith Energy Partners I, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership

This is an appeal from a civil dispute over oil and gas projects in West Texas. The original lawsuit was filed by Smith Energy Company against landman Mark Hardwick and his LLC, alleging breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, and theft. The jury initially awarded Smith $104,000 in damages. However, the trial court significantly increased the recovery to over $5 million in forfeiture and $3.5 million in attorney's fees, in addition to ordering partial rescission of several contracts. Hardwick appeals, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the various claims and the excessiveness of the remedies, arguing that the contracts explicitly disavowed fiduciary duties and that the forfeiture was a baseless land grab. The appellate brief details arguments for reversing the contract, theft, and tort theories, as well as the additional remedies imposed by the trial court.

Oil and Gas DisputeContract BreachFraud ClaimsFiduciary DutyStatutory TheftWorking InterestsOverriding Royalty InterestsLandman ServicesAttorney's Fees DisputeEquitable Remedies
References
83
Case No. 03-04-00485-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2008

MHI Partnership, Ltd. v. DH Real Estate Investment Company D/B/A DH Investment Company

MHI Partnership, Ltd. appealed a trial court judgment concerning its breach-of-contract action against DH Real Estate Investment Company. The dispute arose from a real estate development contract where MHI terminated the agreement, alleging a material breach by DH for failing to provide required backup cost information three weeks before closing, despite a "time is of the essence" clause. The trial court denied MHI's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury found no material breach by DH, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The appellate court found that MHI did not conclusively establish a material breach as a matter of law, noting that boilerplate "time is of the essence" clauses do not automatically make every deadline material, and considering factors such as DH's offers to cure and testimony from MHI's own executives regarding the deadlines' importance. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's finding that DH's conduct did not constitute a material breach justifying contract termination.

Contract LawReal EstateBreach of ContractTime is of the EssenceMaterial BreachDirected VerdictJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewContract TerminationProperty Development
References
26
Case No. 01-07-00401-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2007

Amtech Elevator Services Company v. CSFB 1998-P1 Buffalo Speedway Office Ltd. Partnership, LNR Partners, Inc. and MRIO, Inc., Moody Rambin Interests Inc.

This case involves an insurance dispute where Amtech Elevator Services Company challenged a summary judgment rendered in favor of CSFB 1998-P1 Buffalo Speedway Office Ltd. Partnership and other entities. Amtech argued the trial court erred by enforcing indemnity provisions in a service contract and by finding that Amtech failed to obtain adequate insurance coverage. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found the indemnity provision conspicuous and ruled that Amtech breached its contractual obligations by obtaining a "fronting" insurance policy that was not adequate to protect CSFB's interests, as it did not provide coverage within the policy limits at no cost to CSFB.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentIndemnity clauseConspicuousnessContract interpretationCommercial general liability (CGL)Additional insuredFronting policyBreach of contractTexas appellate court
References
14
Case No. 14-09-01046-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2010

950 Corbindale, L.P., 950 Corbindale Management, L.L.C., 9041 Katy Freeway, Ltd., 9041 Katy Freeway Management, L.L.C., 9039 Holdings Management, L.L.C., Lester Allison, and Richard Plessala v. Kotts Capital Holdings Limited Partnership and Kotts Captial Holdings, Inc.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal concerning the denial of a motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. The appellees, Kotts Capital Holdings, had sought declaratory relief regarding partnership agreements. Appellants argued that the dispute fell within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement, despite a clause limiting awards to 'compensatory damages only.' The appellate court found that this limitation applied only to the type of damages, not the arbitrator's authority to grant declaratory relief. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order, compelling arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementMotion to CompelDeclaratory JudgmentContract InterpretationPartnership DisputeScope of ArbitrationAppellate ProcedureTexas LawRemandInterlocutory Appeal
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,932 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