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

Davis v. Davis (In Re Davis)

This appeal addresses whether 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(1), which makes exempt property liable for family support obligations, preempts Texas homestead law. Sandra Davis, the former wife, sought a turnover order to satisfy a $300,000 nondischargeable debt from her ex-husband, Thomas Cullen Davis', homestead. Cullen Davis and his current wife, Karen Joyce Davis, claimed the property as exempt under Texas law. The bankruptcy court denied Sandra's motion, concluding that Texas homestead law was not preempted and the Turnover Statute could not be used against exempt property. The District Court affirmed this decision, holding that § 522(c)(1) limits the lien-avoidance provisions of the Bankruptcy Code but does not provide a mechanism for execution on exempt property. It affirmed that Texas law allows perfection of a lien on a homestead for such debts, but prohibits forced execution, thus not conflicting with federal law.

BankruptcyHomestead ExemptionPreemptionFamily Support ObligationsNondischargeable DebtTexas LawFederal Bankruptcy LawLien AvoidanceTurnover OrderProperty Law
References
41
Case No. 01-15-00567-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2015

in the Guardianship of Ruby Peterson

This case involves an appeal filed by Mackey Glen Peterson, Tonya Peterson, Don Leslie Peterson, and Lonny Peterson against Silverado Senior Living, Inc., d/b/a Silverado Senior Living Sugar Land. The dispute centers on the appellants' standing to bring claims on behalf of Ruby S. Peterson, a resident at Silverado. The plaintiffs allege false imprisonment, assault and battery (due to forced psychotropic drugs), breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy, contending that Silverado acted against Ruby Peterson's will despite a revoked power of attorney. Silverado sought dismissal of these claims, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing and that Silverado acted in good faith based on a valid 1993 power of attorney. The court previously granted a 91a motion to dismiss earlier causes of action, and Silverado is currently moving to dismiss the remaining claims.

DementiaElder AbusePower of AttorneyMedical DecisionsFalse ImprisonmentAssault and BatteryFiduciary DutyConspiracyRule 91a DismissalStanding
References
25
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. 01-09-00737-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

Curtis Davis, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Terrence Lamoyne Davis v. Able Body Labor

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment regarding a deceased worker's compensation. The appellants, Curtis and Eva Davis, parents of the deceased Terrence Davis, challenged the employer's, Able Body Temporary Services, Inc.'s, workers' compensation exclusive remedy defense. The key issues involved the parents' authority to waive their son's workers' compensation coverage post-mortem, the employer's failure to notify the employee of his opt-out right, and the application of estoppel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that only an employee can waive coverage and that the employer's failure to provide notice does not negate the exclusive remedy provision.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentOpt-out ProvisionLegal BeneficiaryEstate AdministratorAffirmative DefenseEstoppelOpen Courts Provision
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterson v. Continental Casualty Co.

Peterson sued Continental Casualty Company (CNA) seeking short- and long-term disability benefits under ERISA. CNA denied the claims, arguing Peterson was not disabled from a modified, sedentary desk job CBS assigned him after his injury. Peterson cross-moved for summary judgment and sought to add CBS as a defendant for failing to provide plan documents. The court denied both summary judgment motions, finding CNA's interpretation of Peterson's 'regular occupation' as the temporary desk job to be arbitrary and capricious. The court remanded both disability claims to the Claim Administrator to re-evaluate based on Peterson's actual regular occupation prior to his injury, noting that an 'accommodation' job is not the 'regular occupation'. Peterson's request to amend the complaint to add CBS was also denied due to lack of demonstrated prejudice and insufficient grounds for ERISA sanctions.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary Judgment MotionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDe Novo ReviewClaim Administrator DiscretionRegular Occupation DefinitionTotal Disability DefinitionCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSpinal Cord Compression
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Hall

This appeal arises from an automobile accident case where plaintiffs Ollie H. Davis and R.D. Davis sought damages for personal injury and property damage from defendant Horace Hall. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant on the original complaint and awarded him $700.00 on his counterclaim. Plaintiffs appealed, presenting nine issues for review. The issues included allegations of ex parte communication by the trial judge with the jury, disputes over discovery and the admission of recorded witness statements, the propriety of admitting evidence of a prior accident and a worker's compensation claim, objections to defense counsel's closing arguments, and jury instructions concerning insurance. The appellate court found all nine issues to be without merit, often citing a lack of timely objection or a failure to demonstrate prejudice. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Personal InjuryProperty DamageAutomobile AccidentNegligenceCounterclaimJury VerdictAppealEx Parte CommunicationDiscovery ViolationWitness Impeachment
References
10
Case No. AP-77,031
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2015

Davis, Franklin

This document is an appellant's brief in the case of Franklin Davis v. The State of Texas, appealing a capital murder conviction and death sentence from Dallas County. Davis was convicted of the capital murder of Shania Gray, allegedly to obstruct her testimony in a sexual assault case. The brief argues for reversal on multiple grounds, including Batson violations during jury selection, improper denial of motions to quash indictment and suppress evidence, and insufficient evidence to prove the "obstruction" element of capital murder. Additionally, Davis raises numerous constitutional challenges to Texas's death penalty scheme and jury instructions related to future dangerousness and mitigating circumstances. He contends his motive for the murder was revenge for Gray's false sexual assault allegations, not an attempt to prevent her testimony.

Capital MurderDeath PenaltyJury SelectionBatson ChallengeEvidentiary MotionsSufficiency of EvidenceObstruction of JusticeFuture DangerousnessMitigationConstitutional Law
References
92
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Butler

Plaintiff William A. Davis, a general employee of Livingston Services, Inc., was assigned to work for Andrew 'Andy' Butler, a general contractor. Davis sued Butler, but the Supreme Court erred in denying Butler's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court found that Davis was a special employee of Butler as a matter of law, meaning his action against Butler was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provisions. Despite Livingston paying wages and providing workers' compensation benefits, Butler maintained complete control and supervision over Davis's work. Therefore, the order of the Supreme Court was reversed, Butler's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against Butler was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeGeneral ContractorSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewEmployer ControlLabor LawNew York LawSteuben County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Tennessee Life Insurance Co.

Nancy Kway Davis, administratrix of Charles M. Davis's estate, appealed a take-nothing judgment in her suit against Tennessee Life Insurance Company. She sought to recover life insurance proceeds, contending there was no valid beneficiary designation. Charles Davis, an employee of Reading and Bates, was insured under group policies provided by Tennessee Life. Davis had designated his mother, Bessie Carr, as beneficiary in 1966. Although policy 637 was superseded by policy 1264, the jury found that Reading and Bates, authorized by Tennessee Life, issued a certificate for policy 1264 to Charles Davis, naming Bessie Carr as beneficiary. The court found no error in denying Nancy Kway Davis any interest in the proceeds, affirming the judgment that Bessie Carr was the valid beneficiary.

Life InsuranceBeneficiary DesignationGroup Insurance PolicyInsurance ProceedsAdministratrix ClaimCommunity PropertyChose in ActionAppellate ReviewInsurance CertificateEmployer-Provided Insurance
References
5
Case No. 05-95-00281-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 1996

Collin County v. Johnson, Coy, William Don Watson and Nadine Watson

Collin County appealed a summary judgment concerning its subrogation interest in a personal injury settlement. Nadine Watson's medical expenses were paid by the Collin County Insurance Fund, and her husband, William Watson, signed a subrogation agreement. After Nadine settled her personal injury lawsuit, the amount paid by Collin County was placed in the court registry but subsequently released to Nadine. Collin County sued Coy Johnson (Nadine's attorney) and the Watsons, asserting multiple causes of action. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Collin County's motion for summary judgment but reversed the granting of appellees' motion, ruling that Collin County was not required to intervene, was not collaterally estopped, and a fact issue existed regarding equitable subrogation. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

SubrogationSummary JudgmentInterventionCollateral EstoppelAttorney MalpracticeBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceFraudConversionNegligence
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 471 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