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. 13-06-352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2007

Endeavor Natural Gas, L.P., Acting Through Its General Partner, Eng Management, L.L.C., Formerly Known as Endeavor Natural Gas, L.L.C. v. Magnum Hunter Production, Inc., Prize Energy Resources, L.P., and Prize Operating Company

Endeavor Natural Gas, L.P. initiated a lawsuit against Magnum Hunter Production, Inc. and its affiliates, seeking to reclaim $766,472.72 in severance tax refunds and credits associated with oil and gas properties. The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of an Assignment and a subsequent Letter Agreement, specifically defining "expenses" and "revenues" related to the properties. Endeavor argued that the tax refunds constituted expenses, thus falling under the Letter Agreement which would entitle Endeavor to these funds. Conversely, Magnum Hunter asserted that these refunds were neither expenses nor revenues, meaning the broader terms of the Assignment, which favored Magnum Hunter, should govern. The trial court ultimately sided with Magnum Hunter, granting their motion for summary judgment and denying Endeavor's. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concurring that the severance tax refunds and credits did not fit the definitions of "expenses" or "revenues" within the Letter Agreement, thereby upholding that the Assignment's provisions, beneficial to Magnum Hunter, were applicable.

Contract DisputeSummary JudgmentOil and GasSeverance TaxTax RefundsContract InterpretationLegal DefinitionsTexas LawAppellate ReviewProperty Conveyance
References
41
Case No. 03-98-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1999

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Farm, Inc. And Dean Paul D/B/A Paul Farms/Accord Agriculture, Inc. v. Accord Agriculture, Inc./Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Farm, Inc. And Dean Paul D/B/A Paul Farms

Accord Agriculture, Inc. (Accord) initiated a lawsuit against the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), challenging the validity of rules established for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Accord contended that the TNRCC failed to meet the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) reasoned justification requirement and exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating these rules. The trial court invalidated the CAFO rules due to the lack of reasoned justification but dismissed Accord's claims regarding a 'takings' violation and the constitutionality of the Right to Farm Act. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of the CAFO rules and the dismissal of the 'takings' claim. However, it reversed the dismissal of Accord's challenge to the Right to Farm Act, remanding that specific issue for further proceedings.

Administrative Procedure ActReasoned JustificationConcentrated Animal Feeding OperationsEnvironmental RegulationWater QualityAir QualityDeclaratory JudgmentStandingTakings ClaimRight to Farm Act
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zacharie v. U.S. Natural Resources, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by the Zacharies, children of Martha Ray Zacharie, against a summary judgment in favor of U.S. Natural Resources, Inc., Friedrich Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Co., and The Friedrich Company. Martha Ray Zacharie developed latent occupational diseases, including pneumoconiosis and silicosis, during her employment. The trial court's summary judgment on negligence, negligence per se, and occupational disease claims was affirmed due to Martha's lack of due diligence in serving process, which barred her claims under the statute of limitations. However, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment regarding the Zacharies' independent claim for gross negligence and exemplary damages. This claim, brought under the Texas Constitution and the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, was deemed viable and not derivative of Martha's time-barred personal injury claims, allowing the children to pursue it.

Occupational DiseaseStatute of LimitationsGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesDiscovery RuleDue DiligenceTexas Workers' Compensation ActWrongful DeathSurvival ActionSilicosis
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dinkins v. Farley

This case addresses a question of first impression regarding employer liability under respondeat superior for an employee's accident while driving to a tuition-subsidized class. The plaintiff sustained personal injuries in an accident involving an automobile operated by Victor F. Farley, an employee of Xerox Corporation, who was driving to a class funded by Xerox's tuition aid program. The plaintiff sought to hold Xerox liable, arguing Victor was acting within the scope of his employment. The court analyzed the nature of the tuition aid program, emphasizing the primary personal benefit to the employee, lack of employer control over travel, and the contingent nature of the tuition reimbursement. Ultimately, the court determined that Victor's activity was not sufficiently connected to his employment to invoke respondeat superior, granting Xerox's motion to dismiss and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Respondeat SuperiorScope of EmploymentTuition Aid ProgramPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentCPLR 3211CPLR 3212Automobile AccidentEmployer LiabilityEmployee Education
References
8
Case No. 03-17-00534-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2018

Denise Stroup, as Legal Guardian of D. L. S., an Incapacitated Person v. MRM Management, Inc.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a personal injury car-crash case involving an incapacitated person, Douglas Lee Stroup (Appellant). Appellant sued Penny Harrington Taylor for negligence and MRM Management, Inc. (Appellee) for vicarious liability, alleging Taylor, a licensed real estate salesperson, was acting for MRM. Appellee's motion for summary judgment was granted, asserting Taylor was an independent contractor, thus negating vicarious liability. Appellant argues that the independent contractor agreement is void under the Texas Occupation Code, which assigns liability to brokers for their salespersons' tortious conduct. Furthermore, Appellant contends that MRM should be estopped from relying on the agreement, and that factual disputes exist regarding Taylor's employment status, joint-enterprise liability, and statutory vicarious liability under the Texas Occupations Code. Appellant seeks to reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment, arguing sufficient evidence was presented to raise genuine issues of material fact for trial.

Personal InjuryCar CrashVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorReal Estate AgentReal Estate BrokerTexas Occupations CodeRespondeat SuperiorJoint EnterpriseSummary Judgment Appeal
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aycock v. Lykes Brothers Steamship Co.

This civil action involves a longshoreman's claim against his employer for personal injury under the Jones Act and general tort law. The defendant filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's Jones Act allegations. The court examined the relevant statutes, specifically the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, which provides an exclusive remedy for longshoremen and excludes them from Jones Act coverage as they are not considered crewmen of a vessel. Citing precedent, the court found that longshoremen cannot maintain a Jones Act claim against their employer. Therefore, the defendant's motion to strike the Jones Act cause of action was granted, though the plaintiff retains the option to pursue other admiralty remedies.

longshoremanJones Actpersonal injurymaritime lawworkers' compensationemployer liabilityadmiraltymotion to strikeexclusive remedyfederal jurisdiction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.

Emma Soto sued her employer, El Paso Natural Gas Co. (EPNG), for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for EPNG. Soto appealed, arguing the lower court misapplied limitations periods and misinterpreted sexual harassment and employer liability for employee torts. The appellate court reviewed the "totality of circumstances" and found ample evidence for a hostile work environment, including overtly sexual acts and gender-based harassment. It also found fact questions regarding EPNG's notice and remedial actions, and whether Trujillo's assault was within the scope of employment. The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Sexual harassmentHostile work environmentSex discriminationEmployer liabilityIntentional infliction of emotional distressAssaultSummary judgment appealTexas Human Rights ActQuid pro quo harassmentScope of employment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Natural Resource & Conservation Commission v. White

Texas Natural Resource and Conservation Commission (TNRCC), a state agency, appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. Appellee Tammy White alleged that TNRCC's employees negligently caused property damage to her business in Graham, Texas, by improperly handling a motor-driven pump system used to remove gas fumes from adjacent land. The fumes, which had migrated onto White's property from leaking gasoline storage tanks, later ignited and destroyed her building after TNRCC removed the pump system. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding that White had sufficiently alleged facts to raise the issue of waiver of sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) section 101.021(1)(A) for property damage arising from the operation or use of motor-driven equipment. The court emphasized a liberal but reasonable construction of TTCA waiver provisions, noting the early stage of proceedings and the plaintiff's burden to plead sufficient facts for jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActMotor-Driven EquipmentProperty DamageProximate CauseJurisdictionPlea to JurisdictionAppellate Review
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10,974 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