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. 04-22-00450-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

Reynolds Energy Transport, LLC and Reynolds Transportation, Inc. v. Plains Marketing, L.P., Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., Plains Pipeline, L.P.

This appellate case reviews a trial court's order imposing monetary sanctions against Reynolds Energy Transport, LLC and Reynolds Transportation, Inc. (Appellants) in favor of Plains Marketing, L.P.; Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.; and Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Appellees). The sanctions, totaling $482,895.92, were levied under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 and Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for alleged groundless pleadings, false testimony, and discovery abuses. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion, concluding that many findings lacked evidentiary support, were conclusory, or addressed matters not properly raised in the sanctions motion. The court further determined that Appellees failed to overcome the presumption of good faith regarding Appellants' filings. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's sanctions order, rendering judgment that Appellees take nothing on their motion.

SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure Rule 13Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 10Groundless ClaimsBad FaithDiscovery AbuseSummary JudgmentDue Process
References
53
Case No. 11-06-00048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2006

Midland Central Appraisal District and Midland County Appraisal Review Board v. Plains Marketing, L.P., a Texas Limited Partnership, and Plains Marketing GP Inc., General Partner

This ad valorem tax suit involves Plains Marketing, L.P. appealing the tax assessment on its crude oil inventory accounts. The Midland Central Appraisal District and Midland County Appraisal Review Board challenged the trial court's jurisdiction, asserting that Plains failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court denied their challenge. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Plains had sufficiently exhausted its administrative remedies because the exemption claim was thoroughly discussed and determined by the Appraisal Review Board, despite initial protest notice deficiencies. The core issue revolved around whether oil stored in tank farms for future delivery constituted taxable inventory or was exempt under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Property TaxAd ValoremAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionExhaustion DoctrineInterstate CommerceOil InventoryAppraisal Review BoardTexas LawAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 07-09-0343-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2011

South Plains Lamesa Railroad, Ltd., and Larry Dale Wisener v. the Kitten Family Living Trust

This case involves an appeal concerning a contract dispute over water well operations on property owned by South Plains Lamesa Railroad, Ltd. (SPLR). The Kitten Family Living Trust (the Trust) had entered into both a Lease Agreement and a subsequent Easement Agreement with SPLR for drilling water wells. A dispute arose regarding the number of wells the Trust was permitted to operate and the duration of its rights, leading to the Trust suing SPLR for interference. The trial court ruled in favor of the Trust, granting a perpetual easement and attorneys' fees. On appeal, SPLR argued that the trial court erred in its jury instructions, specifically claiming that a broad-form question was defective for failing to incorporate legal theories and their elements. The appellate court agreed, finding the instruction improper and confusing, and also noted errors in not submitting instructions on an alleged oral agreement and conversion. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial due to these instructional errors.

Contract DisputeLease AgreementEasement AgreementWater RightsJury InstructionsAppellate ProcedureReversal and RemandOral ContractConversion ClaimStatute of Frauds
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 1984

Claim of De Bitetto v. City of White Plains

The claimant, a firefighter for the City of White Plains, suffered a compensable back injury in 1971, leading to permanent partial disability benefits. His case was reopened, and in 1983, the Workers' Compensation Board awarded him over $15,000 in back compensation. Subsequently, the claimant sought review to rescind these awards, aiming to recover Social Security deductions, but the Board denied his request. The claimant appealed this denial. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the claimant lacked standing as he was not an aggrieved party, and the Board's discretionary decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

Disability BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityTotal Disability ClaimSocial Security OffsetsAppeal from Board DecisionReconsideration RequestJudicial DiscretionStanding to AppealAggrieved PartyFirefighter Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2006

Diaz v. White Plains Coat & Apron Co.

Manuel Diaz, a laundry worker, was injured after falling from a laundry bin while employed in a building owned by White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. He initiated an action for personal injuries against the defendant, predicated on premises liability. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case and sought to amend its answer to include a Workers' Compensation defense, arguing surprise due to a shift in the plaintiff's theory of liability to negligent supervision. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion. On appeal, the interlocutory judgment was reversed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case was granted, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Premises LiabilityNegligent SupervisionWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityPrima Facie CaseMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewJury VerdictInterlocutory JudgmentNew York LawPersonal Injury Damages
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. White Plains Housing Authority

The petitioner challenged the White Plains Housing Authority's June 28, 1993 determination to terminate his employment as a maintenance worker through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the determination, dismissing the proceeding on the merits with costs. The decision was based on a finding that substantial evidence supported all three charges against the petitioner, referencing precedents such as Matter of Lahey v Kelly and Matter of County of Suffolk v Newman.

CPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewEmployment TerminationMaintenance WorkerWhite Plains Housing AuthoritySubstantial EvidenceAdministrative DeterminationPublic EmploymentDismissal on MeritsCourt Costs
References
2
Case No. 11-01-00133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2002

South Plains Lamesa Railroad, Ltd. v. Acero International, Inc.

Acero International, Inc. sued South Plains Lamesa Railroad, Ltd. (SPLR) for breach of a written contract and an oral contract. SPLR counterclaimed for breach of the written contract. The jury found that SPLR repudiated the written contract and breached the oral contract, awarding Acero $30,000 in damages. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Acero, which was affirmed by the appellate court. SPLR appealed arguing no evidence or insufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on repudiation and breach of the oral contract, and also alleged improper jury argument by Acero's counsel. The appellate court overruled all of SPLR's issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractOral ContractRepudiationJury FindingsAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceImproper Jury ArgumentDamagesTexas Court of Appeals
References
9
Case No. ADJ7622191 ADJ10153210 ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258)
Regular
Aug 05, 2019

CATHERINA DE LAY vs. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL, DIGNITY HEALTH, TRAVELERS

This case involves a clerical error in the caption of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision from July 19, 2019. The error resulted in the misidentification of adjudication numbers in the original decision. The Board is correcting this clerical error without granting reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The amended caption now accurately includes all relevant case numbers: ADJ7622191, ADJ10153210, ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), and ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258).

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardclerical errorOpinion and DecisionReconsiderationadjudication numbersSuperior Nationalliquidationpermissibly self-insuredCIGADignity Health
References
0
Case No. ADJ9105445
Regular
Dec 01, 2009

CHARLES STUMPH vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

This case concerns a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) opinion. The error involved misidentifying a defendant in the initial sentence of a paragraph. The WCAB has issued an order correcting this clerical error to accurately reflect that the applicant, Charles Stumph, entered into a compromise and release agreement with the County of Orange Sheriff's Department. This correction was made without granting further reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The Board's original decision rescinded the administrative law judge's findings and approved the compromise and release agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorReconsiderationLabor Code Section 132aFindings of Fact and OrderCompromise and ReleaseWCJWCAB Rule 10882Labor Code Section 5001Labor Code Section 5002
References
2
Case No. 07-13-00241-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2015

South Plains Lamesa Railroad, Ltd. and Larry Dale Wisener v. Kitten Family Living Trust

This case involves an appeal by South Plains Lamesa Railroad, Ltd. and Larry Dale Wisener (SPLR) against Kitten Family Living Trust (the Trust) in a property dispute. The appeal stems from a jury trial that favored the Trust, with SPLR raising issues including insufficient evidence, scope of rights, and the trial court's failure to submit affirmative defenses. Critically, SPLR also alleged that the Trust failed to disclose a 2009 survey showing wells and pipelines outside the agreed easement. The Court of Appeals found the issue of newly discovered evidence regarding the undisclosed survey to be dispositive, concluding that the Trust's failure to produce the survey demonstrated a lack of due diligence. This evidence, which could change the jury's verdict on the trespass claim, led the appellate court to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial.

Property disputeEasementTrespassNewly discovered evidenceDue diligenceDiscovery abuseJury trialAppellate reviewReversalRemand
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 2,737 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