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. 03-16-00222-CV
Regular Panel Decision

LMV-AL Ventures, LLC// Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services and Commissioner Jon Weizenbaum, in His Official Capacity v. Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services and Commissioner Jon Weizenbaum, in His Official Capacity// Cross-Appellee, LMV-AL Ventures, LLC

This case is not as complicated as Appellees/Cross-Appellants’ Brief would suggest. On the merits, this case is about the meaning of "usable floor space" under 40 TAC § 92.62(m)(1)(B) and whether DADS ignored the plain meaning of those three words in calculating such space at Plaintiff's assisted living facility. It is also about the validity of DADS’ “secret rule,” unpublished and not promulgated pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, which DADS uses to justify omitting admittedly “usable” floor space. On jurisdictional issues, this case is also not as complicated as DADS’ Brief suggests. Contrary to DADS’ contentions, LMV is challenging both the applicability of Rule 92.62(m)(1)(B) and the validity and applicability of DADS’ “secret” measuring rule. “Applicability” under APA section 2001.038 and caselaw includes the application of the rule to the facts at hand. Further, the validity of DADS’ “secret” rule is challenged, because the rule was not promulgated pursuant to APA requirements and not published. Thus, there is subject matter jurisdiction under APA section 2001.038. LMV has standing to challenge DADS’ action because it imposes a regulatory burden and impedes LMV’s business opportunities. Under the APA section 2001.038 framework and relevant caselaw, LMV’s lawsuit is ripe and seeks more than an advisory opinion. In addition, there is subject matter jurisdiction for the ultra vires claims under the UDJA and subject matter jurisdiction for the constitutional due process claims (which DADS failed to brief). DADS’ plea to the jurisdiction and arguments in its brief are smoke and mirrors, designed to divert attention from DADS’ failure to (1) apply the indisputable plain language of its own rules and (2) follow APA requirements for promulgating otherwise “secret” and invalid rules.

Administrative lawAgency rulemakingUsable floor spaceAssisted living facilityRegulatory burdenBusiness opportunitiesSovereign immunityUltra viresDue processAPA
References
24
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. 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. 04-14-00650-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Michael A. Cerny and Myra L. Cerny, Individually and as Next Friends of Cameron A. Cerny, a Child v. Marathon Oil Corporation, Marathon Oil EF LLC, and Plains Exploration & Producing Company

The Cernys sued Marathon Oil and Plains Exploration & Producing Company for private nuisance and negligence, alleging that toxic emissions from their oil and gas operations in the Eagle Ford Shale caused health issues and property damage. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that the Cernys presented no evidence of causation. On appeal, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court determined that the Cernys' claims were toxic torts requiring strict causation standards, including expert testimony to prove general and specific causation and to exclude other plausible causes, which the Cernys failed to provide. The appellate court also upheld the striking of the Cernys' summary judgment evidence.

Toxic TortNuisanceNegligenceSummary JudgmentCausationExpert TestimonyEpidemiological StudiesOil and Gas OperationsEnvironmental ContaminationProperty Damage
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Hostess Brands, Inc.

This modified bench ruling addresses a motion by the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (Bakers' Union) to dismiss a debtor's Section 1113/1114 motion due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The central dispute revolves around whether Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code, which governs the rejection of collective bargaining agreements, applies to agreements that have technically expired but whose key terms remain in effect under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) until good faith bargaining to impasse. The Bakers' Union argued that expired agreements are not considered 'agreements' under Section 1113, a position the court largely concurred with, emphasizing the plain language of the statute and the distinction between Section 1113(e) and other subsections. Despite the debtor's arguments concerning the policy implications and potential interference with reorganization efforts, the court found insufficient evidence to extend the statute's language beyond its literal meaning. Consequently, the court granted the Bakers' Union's motion, concluding that Section 1113 does not apply to already expired collective bargaining agreements.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBankruptcy Code Section 1113Subject Matter JurisdictionNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Expired AgreementsDebtor in PossessionUnion Motion to DismissInterim ChangesGood Faith BargainingStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White Plains City School District Board of Education v. Merchants Mutual Insurance

The plaintiff initiated legal action against several general liability insurance carriers, seeking a declaration that the carriers were obligated to defend and indemnify it in an underlying negligence case, Denslow v City of White Plains, involving a deceased employee's asbestos-related cancer. Defendants Northern Insurance Company of New York and Merchants Mutual Insurance Company moved for summary judgment, asserting that their policies contained exclusionary clauses for bodily injury to employees arising during employment. Initially, the Supreme Court denied these motions due to perceived ambiguity in the exclusions. However, upon reargument, the court concluded that the exclusionary clauses were unambiguous and should not be interpreted through Workers' Compensation Law, which defines 'course of employment' more narrowly. Consequently, the court reversed its prior decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them, citing New York precedent that upholds the plain meaning of such clauses.

Summary judgmentInsurance coverage disputeExclusionary clausesBodily injury claimsCourse of employmentWorkers' Compensation interpretationOccupational diseaseAsbestos exposure liabilityDeclaratory judgment actionDismissal of complaint
References
4
Case No. 09-0330
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2010

Liana Leordeanu v. American Protection Insurance Company

Justice Johnson dissents from the majority's interpretation of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, specifically regarding the 'course and scope of employment' for injuries sustained during travel. He argues that the Court improperly adds language to the statute, altering its plain meaning. Justice Johnson contends that the statute clearly specifies two disjunctive exclusions for travel-related injuries, and the majority's construction misinterprets these provisions. He agrees with the court of appeals that the dual purpose rule applies to Leordeanu's claim, meaning her injury is not compensable, and he would have affirmed the court of appeals' judgment.

Statutory InterpretationDual Purpose TravelCourse and Scope of EmploymentTexas Workers' Compensation ActDissenting OpinionLegislative IntentJudicial InterpretationTravel Injury ExclusionSupreme Court Review
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 11,109 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