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. 11-05-00326-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2006

Alice Marie Belew D/B/A Belew Real Estate v. James A. Rector

This case involves an appeal concerning an oral employment contract dispute over real estate commissions. Appellant Alice Marie Belew, a real estate broker operating Belew Real Estate, challenged a trial court judgment in favor of Appellee James A. Rector. Rector claimed entitlement to commissions from lot sales in Desert Willow Estates based on an oral agreement. The trial court found Rector was due additional commissions and attorney's fees. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed Belew's arguments regarding lack of consideration, sufficiency of evidence for commission receipt, and presentment of attorney's fees claim, ultimately affirming the lower court's decision.

Real Estate LawOral ContractEmployment DisputeCommissionsAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewContractual ConsiderationLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyTexas Law
References
29
Case No. 04-24-00606-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2025

Michael Shalit D/B/A Kimberly Investment Company, Lynzara-Austin Real Estate Management, LLC, as General Partner of Kendall County Development Company, L.P., and as General Partner of Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Robyn Real Estate Investments, L.P., Robyn Utility Investments, L.P., and Robyn Utility Investments Management, LLC v. Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Kendall County Development Company, L.P., Kendall County Utility Company, Inc., Tapatio Springs Utility Holdings, L.P., and Tapatio Springs Hospitality Holdings, L.P.

This memorandum opinion addresses an appeal from a summary judgment granted by the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas. Appellants, collectively known as the Shalit Entities, appealed a summary judgment in favor of Appellees, the Tapatio Entities, which barred the Shalit Entities' counter-claims due to the four-year statute of limitations. The Shalit Entities' claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel, arose from a soured business partnership. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the Shalit Entities failed to sufficiently plead acknowledgment of debt to defeat the limitations defense. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that special exceptions were a prerequisite to summary judgment on limitations grounds and affirmed the severance of claims.

Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractStatutory FraudDeclaratory ReliefBusiness Partnership DisputeReal Estate VentureAppellate ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Joyner v. Event Design Associates, Inc.

Claimant was retained by Event Design Associates, Inc. (EDA) to transport furniture and event props for a party. While en route to a hotel during this assignment, claimant was involved in an automobile accident and sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits, asserting an employer-employee relationship with EDA. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that an employment relationship existed. EDA appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship, based on factors such as EDA's control over the work, method of payment, and right to terminate.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceControl TestAppellate ReviewAutomobile AccidentNew YorkWorkers' Compensation BoardTemporary Employment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nautilus Insurance v. Matthew David Events, Ltd.

Nautilus Insurance Company sought a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Matthew David Events (MDE) in a personal injury action brought by Timothy Shea. Shea, an employee of a subcontractor hired by MDE, was injured while working at an event planned by MDE. Nautilus disclaimed coverage due to MDE's failure to provide timely notice and an employee exclusion in the policy. The motion court denied Nautilus's summary judgment, finding the employee exclusion ambiguous. The appellate court reversed, holding that the employee exclusion, which broadly defined 'employee' to include those 'contracted for' the insured, clearly applied to Shea, an employee of MDE's subcontractor. The court concluded that Nautilus had met its burden in demonstrating the exclusion's applicability.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory Judgment ActionEmployee Exclusion ClauseContract InterpretationSubcontractor Employee InjuryTimely Notice ProvisionSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate Court DecisionCommercial General Liability PolicyBodily Injury Claim
References
21
Case No. 2-06-472-CV, 2-07-048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2009

in Re Gerald W. Haddock

Gerald W. Haddock filed a consolidated interlocutory appeal and mandamus proceeding challenging a trial court's order staying arbitration. Haddock initiated arbitration against William F. Quinn, Paul E. Rowsey, III, John Goff, Terry N. Worrell, Crescent Real Estate Equities Company (CEI), Crescent Real Estate Equities Limited Partnership (CREELP), and Crescent Real Estate Equities, Limited (CREE) after previously litigating related claims in court. The core issue was whether Haddock waived his right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process in a prior lawsuit concerning his options and alleged mismanagement by the Crescent Entities. The court determined it had jurisdiction to decide the waiver issue, rejecting Haddock's argument that the incorporation of AAA rules delegated this to an arbitrator. The court found that Haddock's extensive litigation, including seeking injunctive relief and summary judgment in the prior suit, constituted a substantial invocation of the judicial process. This prejudiced the defendants by forcing them to incur significant expenses. Consequently, the court held that Haddock waived his right to arbitrate these claims. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction.

ArbitrationWaiverJudicial ProcessFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationPrejudiceLitigation ConductOption ClaimsSeverance AgreementLimited Partnership Agreement
References
62
Case No. 05-19-00252-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2020

Erin Walker v. Pegasus Eventing, LLC, Ellen Doughty-Hume And Alistair Hume

This appeal concerns an interlocutory order from the 422nd Judicial District Court of Kaufman County, Texas, regarding a motion to dismiss filed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Appellant Erin Walker, a former client of appellees Pegasus Eventing, LLC, Ellen Doughty-Hume, and Alistair Hume, sought dismissal of their claims (business disparagement, tortious interference, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy) after making complaints to the United States Eventing Association (USEA) about Doughty-Hume's training methods. The core issue on appeal was the timeliness of the hearing on Walker's TCPA motion. The Court found that the hearing on Walker’s motion was untimely, occurring 109 days after service, exceeding the 90-day (or 120-day with court-allowed discovery) statutory deadline. The court rejected arguments that amended petitions or a Rule 11 agreement reset or extended the deadline. Consequently, Walker forfeited her TCPA motion. The Court affirmed the denial of Walker's motion to dismiss the business disparagement claim but reversed the grant of dismissal for the other claims and reversed the award of attorney's fees and sanctions to Walker, remanding the cause for further proceedings.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAMotion to DismissTimelinessAppellate ProcedureRule 11 AgreementDiscovery ExtensionService of ProcessBusiness DisparagementTortious Interference
References
25
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. 05-14-01265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2015

Azeb Ruder v. William Jordan D/B/A William Davis Realty, William Davis Real Estate Services, LLC

Azeb Ruder appealed the denial of her motion to dismiss defamation claims filed by William Jordan d/b/a William Davis Realty, William Davis Real Estate Services, LLC d/b/a William Davis Realty, and Kathy Jabri. Ruder's motion was filed under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA) after she posted a negative review of Kathy Jabri's real estate services on Zillow. Appellees claimed Ruder's statements were defamatory, specifically regarding the property being 'Temp Off Market' for over 100 days against her wish, other realtors' opinions, and questioning Jabri's competence. The appellate court found Ruder met her burden under TCPA. However, appellees failed to establish a prima facie case for defamation because the alleged false statements were either substantially true (regarding the duration of the 'Temp Off Market' status) or non-actionable statements of opinion (regarding competence or mental state). The court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the defamation claims, remanding for determination of costs and attorney's fees.

DefamationTexas Citizens' Participation ActTCPAFree SpeechReal Estate LawMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedurePrima Facie CaseSubstantial Truth DoctrineStatement of Opinion
References
22
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01347
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2021

Treacy v. Inspired Event Productions, LLC

Peter Treacy, a Teamsters' Union laborer, was injured on a loading dock when a crate fell on him while unloading materials for an event. He subsequently filed claims against multiple defendants under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing Treacy's claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Treacy was not a covered worker under the Labor Law as his duties were limited to unloading materials on a permanent loading dock and he was not involved in the actual construction being performed at the site.

Worker injuryloading docksummary judgmentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241(6)construction workerscope of employmentappellate reviewTeamsters' Unionpremises liability
References
7
Case No. 08-CV-3175 (JG)(JO)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2009

Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Bercosa Corp.

Century 21 Real Estate LLC sued Bercosa Corp. and its owner Pedro Bernard for breach of contract and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The defendants failed to respond to the complaint, leading to a motion for default judgment. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation, which District Judge John Gleeson adopted, finding the defendants liable. The court awarded Century 21 a total of $319,832.32 in monetary damages, including contract claims, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Additionally, the defendants were permanently enjoined from using the Century 21 Marks and ordered to cooperate in an audit of Bercosa’s books and records.

Default JudgmentTrademark InfringementLanham ActBreach of ContractFranchise AgreementMonetary DamagesInjunctive ReliefAttorneys' FeesAudit OrderWillful Violation
References
66
Showing 1-10 of 1,139 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