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

Brewer v. Exxon Corp.

Plaintiff Brewer filed a lawsuit against Exxon Corporation alleging breach of contract and violations of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Brewer, an Exxon employee, claimed she was promised a dealership and that her management role was a precondition to an eventual franchise. Exxon later converted the store to a franchise, but Brewer did not acquire it, as it was sold to another individual who was required to purchase two stores. The court analyzed whether the PMPA applied to the relationship between the parties, noting that the Act is intended to cover existing franchise relationships and protect independent dealers who have invested time and money, not preliminary negotiations or mere employees. Finding that Brewer was an employee and did not bear the entrepreneurial risk indicative of a franchisee, the court granted summary judgment to Exxon, dismissing Brewer's claim under the PMPA, while suggesting she might have other common law or statutory remedies.

Petroleum Marketing Practices ActFranchise AgreementEmployee RightsSummary JudgmentContract DisputeTitle VII ClaimMotor Fuel DistributionStatutory InterpretationBusiness RelationshipsEntrepreneurial Risk
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. Littleton

Jackie and Cheryl Woods sued B. L. Littleton and Joe S. Thomson, doing business as Superior Construction Company, for defective sewer systems and faulty repairs, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found the Act applicable and actions deceptive but declined to treble damages. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded, questioning the Act's applicability. This court affirmed the remand, ruling that the Act applies to deceptive practices occurring after its effective date (May 21, 1973), even if the initial sale was earlier, and that treble damages are mandatory once liability is established. The case was remanded for a retrial to determine actual damages solely attributable to post-effective date deceptive practices, which must then be trebled.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer ProtectionMandatory Treble DamagesStatutory InterpretationRemand for RetrialSewer System DefectsFaulty Repair ServiceReal Estate TransactionPost-Effective Date ApplicabilityMental Anguish Damages
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colonial Super Markets, Inc. v. Liss

Plaintiffs (Colonial Super Markets, Hy-Co Supermarkets, Marcaro, Inc.), three separate retail food stores affiliated as "Bells," sued defendant labor unions (Teamsters Local 558 and Food Store Employees 34) and their officers for a permanent injunction against picketing and for money damages. The plaintiffs moved for injunctive relief pendente lite. The unions began picketing plaintiffs' stores, claiming employees were non-union. Subsequently, Retail Clerks Local No. 212 organized plaintiffs' employees, and plaintiffs signed a recognition agreement with Local No. 212. Despite this, Teamsters Local No. 558 continued picketing, and Local No. 34 later rejoined. Plaintiffs argued the picketing's unlawful objective was to coerce them into recognizing the defendant unions and breach their contract with Local No. 212, constituting interference with contractual relations. Defendants asserted lawful organizational picketing and that the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. The court concluded that the picketing's real purpose was unlawful coercion and to induce contract breach, thus not constituting a "labor dispute" under Civil Practice Act section 876-a. The court also found its jurisdiction not preempted by federal statutes since the activities were not unfair labor practices under federal law. Consequently, the court denied defendants' motions and granted plaintiffs' motions for injunctive relief, with a termination proviso on November 1, 1957.

InjunctionPicketingLabor DisputeUnlawful Labor ObjectiveCollective BargainingRecognition AgreementJurisdictional DisputeContractual InterferenceState Court JurisdictionPreemption Doctrine
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dye v. McIntyre Floral Co.

This suit was brought by employees against McIntyre Floral Company, alleging a deficiency in wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The core issue revolves around whether the employees are exempt from the Act's provisions due to their employment in agriculture, specifically in handling "agricultural or horticultural commodities for market." The chancellor initially sustained a demurrer, agreeing that the complainants were exempt. The court examined the Act's definition of "agriculture," which includes the cultivation and harvesting of horticultural commodities and practices incidental to farming, such as preparation for market. The court concluded that the employees' work, involving the receipt, care, and preparation of nursery products for shipment, falls under the "preparation for market" clause of the agricultural exemption, affirming the initial judgment. This construction aligns with the understanding of agriculture's seasonal nature, which includes horticulture.

Fair Labor Standards ActAgricultural ExemptionHorticultural CommoditiesNursery BusinessWage DeficiencyInterstate CommercePreparation for MarketFarm Laborer ExemptionStatutory InterpretationDavidson County
References
3
Case No. 00-80050A
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2000

Victory Markets, Inc. v. NYS Unemployment Insurance (In Re Victory Markets Inc.)

Victory Markets, Inc. (VMI) and Victory Markets, LLC (LLC) initiated an adversary proceeding against the New York State Unemployment Insurance Division of the Department of Labor, challenging the Department's transfer of VMI's unemployment insurance tax experience rating to new owners following VMI's Chapter 11 reorganization. VMI argued this transfer violated its reorganization plan and negatively impacted funds available for creditors. The Department moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute involved non-debtor parties and state law, and was furthermore precluded by the Tax Injunction Act. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Chief Judge STEPHEN D. GERLING, granted the Department's motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under 'arising in,' 'arising under,' or 'related to' doctrines, as the matter concerned a state agency's application of state law against non-debtors with a remote connection to the bankruptcy estate. The court also emphasized the availability of a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in state courts, which barred federal intervention.

BankruptcySubject Matter JurisdictionTax Injunction ActNew York Labor LawUnemployment Insurance TaxChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingState Tax DisputeNon-Debtor PartiesExperience Rating Transfer
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Coastal Transport Co.

Crown Central Petroleum Corporation appealed an unfavorable judgment in a negligence and gross negligence action stemming from an explosion and fire at its Pasadena, Texas facility. The incident occurred when a trailer owned by Coastal Transport Company, Inc. overfilled, spilling gasoline which was ignited by a trailer owned by Brenco Marketing Corporation. The trial court had granted directed verdicts in favor of Brenco on negligence and Coastal on exemplary damages, and the jury found Crown Central's injury to be temporary, leading to a 'take nothing' judgment due to prior settlement. The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict for Brenco and the jury's finding of temporary injury, but reversed and remanded the directed verdict for Coastal on gross negligence, finding sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue for trial.

NegligenceGross NegligenceDirected VerdictProximate CauseForeseeabilityDamages AssessmentTemporary InjuryPermanent InjuryExemplary DamagesExpert Testimony
References
28
Case No. 03-05-00822-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2006

InsureSuite, Inc. v. MJS Marketing, L.P.

MJS Marketing, a Texas limited partnership, sued InsureSuite, Inc., a Delaware corporation, for fraud, breach of contract, and Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) violations. MJS alleged InsureSuite fraudulently sold them worthless email addresses for internet advertising, causing $30,750 in damages. A no-answer default judgment was awarded to MJS, including prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. InsureSuite appealed, challenging the trial court's personal jurisdiction, the factual sufficiency of evidence supporting the damages, and the absence of findings for DTPA prerequisites. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding service was proper and evidence sufficient for damages and prejudgment interest, and did not address the DTPA findings due to multiple supporting grounds for the decision.

Default JudgmentRestricted AppealPersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessLong-Arm StatuteFactual SufficiencyDamages AwardPrejudgment InterestDeceptive Trade Practices ActFraud
References
32
Case No. 14-02-00634-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2003

Phillips Petroleum Company, GPM Gas Corporation, Phillips Gas Marketing Company, Phillips Gas Company, and GPM Gas Trading Company v. Kathryn Aylor Bowden, Beulah Poorman Vick, Omer F. Poorman, Monte Cluck and Benny Ted Powell

This interlocutory appeal concerned a trial court's class certification order involving Phillips Petroleum Company and several affiliates as appellants, and royalty owners as appellees. The royalty owners alleged underpayment of royalties due to Phillips' inter-affiliate transactions. The appellate court reviewed the certification of three subclasses, scrutinizing the predominance of common issues and the adequacy of class representation under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The court found that individual issues predominated over common ones, particularly regarding lease interpretations and the intent behind various gas royalty agreements. Furthermore, issues of intra-class antagonism and the potential for res judicata to bar future claims were identified as problems. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Class ActionRoyalty PaymentsOil and Gas LeasesBreach of ContractImplied CovenantsExpress CovenantsClass CertificationPredominance of IssuesAdequacy of RepresentationRes Judicata
References
43
Case No. 13-02-391-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2005

Keith Hahn v. Whiting Petroleum Corp., Rk Petroleum Corp. and Tremont Energy, L.L.C.

Appellant Keith Hahn appeals a default judgment holding him jointly and severally liable for damages and attorney fees. The underlying suit was filed by appellees Whiting Petroleum Corp., RK Petroleum Corp., and Tremont Energy, L.L.C., alleging misappropriation of mineral production proceeds under joint operating agreements. The trial court denied Hahn’s motion for new trial, which led to this appeal. This dissenting opinion by Justice Castillo concludes that Hahn waived several issues on appeal and failed to satisfy the Craddock test for setting aside a default judgment. Furthermore, the opinion finds the damages award legally sufficient and that the absence of a reporter's record does not necessitate reversal, ultimately concluding to affirm the trial court's judgment.

Default JudgmentMineral Production DisputeJoint Operating AgreementsMisappropriation of ProceedsBreach of Fiduciary DutyConstructive FraudAttorney FeesMotion for New TrialCraddock TestUnliquidated Damages
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 8,383 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