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

Jaramillo v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

This is an appeal by writ of error challenging a post-answer default judgment in a worker's compensation case. The Industrial Accident Board ruled in favor of the Appellant, but the Appellee filed a suit to set aside the award. The Appellant failed to appear for trial, resulting in a default judgment for the Appellee. On appeal, the court considered whether an error was apparent on the face of the record, a requirement for a writ of error. The Appellant failed to provide a statement of facts or evidence of its absence, leading the court to presume the regularity of the trial court's judgment. Additionally, the Appellant's complaint regarding a motion for continuance was overruled due to lack of record support. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

worker's compensationdefault judgmentwrit of errorappellate procedurestatement of factsmotion for continuanceTexas lawIndustrial Accident Boardappealevidence
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Munoz v. Rivera

Julio Rivera sued Mario Munoz and associated entities (Country Club Body & Paint West, Country Club Investment, Inc.) for conversion of his 1994 Chevrolet Camaro after an unauthorized repair and subsequent refusal to return the vehicle. A post-answer default judgment was entered against the defendants due to their non-appearance at trial. The defendants appealed, asserting they did not receive proper notice of the trial setting or their attorney's withdrawal. The appellate court, reviewing for abuse of discretion, analyzed the notice and the defendants' conduct regarding their failure to appear. Ultimately, the court found that notice was adequately sent and received, and the defendants failed to prove their absence was not due to intentional disregard or conscious indifference, thus affirming the trial court's judgment.

Post-Answer Default JudgmentNotice of Trial SettingMotion to Withdraw CounselDue Process ViolationCraddock ElementsAbuse of DiscretionIntentional DisregardConscious IndifferenceVehicle ConversionDamage Award
References
12
Case No. DC-13-04564-L
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

in Re: Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc. and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault and related damages, including mental anguish. Her designated psychologist, Dr. William Flynn, conducted a mental examination. Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc., and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership sought an independent psychological examination of the plaintiff by their expert, Dr. Lisa Clayton. The district court initially denied this motion, and subsequently denied the defendants' joint motion for reconsideration. This mandamus record documents the appellate review of this discovery dispute.

Sexual AssaultMental AnguishPsychological ExaminationDiscovery DisputeForensic PsychologyPremises LiabilityMandamus PetitionCivil ProcedureExpert WitnessTexas Law
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

RONE ENGINEERING SERVICE, LTD. v. Culberson

This is a restricted appeal from a no-answer default judgment against Rone Engineering Service, Ltd., filed by Troy Culberson. The core issue was whether the trial court acquired personal jurisdiction over the appellant due to discrepancies in the defendant's name on the citation and return of service versus the judgment. The appellate court found that the record did not affirmatively demonstrate strict compliance with the rules governing service of process. It concluded that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Rone Engineering Service, Ltd. Therefore, the court vacated the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

restricted appealdefault judgmentservice of processpersonal jurisdictionmisnomercorporate identityappellate reviewvoid judgmentprocedural errorremand
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. R. S. R. Corp.

Plaintiff's husband, John Jones, was killed in an explosion during his employment with Revere Smelting and Refining Corporation of New Jersey in February 1984. Although the plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits, an action was commenced against Revere Smelting in January 1986. Due to delays by the insurer, Revere Smelting's answer was untimely, resulting in a default judgment against them in May 1986. A subsequent motion to vacate this default was denied by the Supreme Court in September 1986, leading to the current appeal. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granting the motion to vacate the default judgment, conditioned upon the defendant serving an answer within 20 days. The court emphasized the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Law and the lack of substantial prejudice to the plaintiff.

Workers' CompensationDefault JudgmentVacaturAppealExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityInsurer DelayAbuse of DiscretionProcedural LawNew York Law
References
7
Case No. 11-18-00088-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2019

William R. Hickey v. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc.

William R. Hickey appeals the denial of his motion to set aside a no-answer default judgment entered against him. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. filed a petition to foreclose on Hickey's manufactured home after he defaulted on a retail installment contract. Substituted service was granted and executed by posting citation on Hickey's gate after personal service attempts failed. Hickey's motion to set aside the default judgment, asserting improper service and a meritorious defense, was denied by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that substituted service was properly accomplished and Hickey's failure to answer was due to conscious indifference, failing the first prong of the Craddock test.

Default JudgmentSubstituted ServiceMotion to Set AsideAppellate ReviewDue DiligenceService of ProcessCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceMeritorious DefenseForeclosure
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Post

The petitioner, a child protective worker, sought custody of Christopher Post, whose parents, Rose and William Post, had a documented history of child abuse and neglect, leading to the removal of seven other children from their care. Christopher had also been involved in two prior neglect proceedings. The parents exhibited severe deficiencies in parenting skills, an inability to address Christopher's emotional disturbances, and a history of rejecting assistance. After voluntarily placing Christopher with the petitioner, who became his psychological parent, they abruptly cut off contact. The Family Court found extraordinary circumstances, justified judicial intervention, and granted custody to the petitioner, a decision which the appellate court subsequently affirmed.

Custody DisputeParental UnfitnessChild NeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6Child Protective ServicesAppealParental RightsPsychological ParentEmotional Disturbance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1990

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Valenzano

The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund initiated an action against Marcello Valenzano, doing business as ABC Contracting Co., for unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. The defendant failed to comply with discovery requests, leading to an order conditionally striking his answer and later, a default judgment. Defendant's pro se motion to vacate the default judgment, asserting non-receipt of documents and partial compliance, was denied by the IAS court. The court found service proper and noted the defendant's failure to demonstrate a meritorious defense. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding the lower court acted within its discretion to strike the answer for willful failure to comply with discovery, considering the lack of reasonable excuse and meritorious defense.

Default JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsFailure to ComplyWorkers' Compensation InsuranceVacate JudgmentMeritorious DefenseService of ProcessAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureSupreme Court
References
3
Case No. CV 14-6347(JS)(GRB)
Regular Panel Decision

Gesualdi v. Reid

The plaintiffs, trustees and fiduciaries of several Local 282 Trust Funds, commenced an action against J.H. Reid, General Contractor, seeking to recover allegedly delinquent contributions under ERISA and LMRA. The defendant failed to answer the complaint, leading to a default. After an initial denial of a default judgment motion due to improper service, the plaintiffs renewed their motion. Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown issued a second Report and Recommendation, advising to grant the renewed default judgment motion, award damages totaling $1,030,265.28 for unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, and deny injunctive relief. Despite granted extensions, the defendant failed to file timely objections to the recommendation. District Judge Spatt reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in its entirety, granting the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment and directing the entry of judgment in their favor, thereby closing the case.

Default JudgmentERISA ClaimsLMRA ClaimsDelinquent ContributionsEmployee Benefit PlansTrust FundsAttorneys' FeesLiquidated DamagesAudit CostsInjunctive Relief Denied
References
30
Case No. 04-15-00433-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2015

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality & Post Oak Clean Green, Inc. v. Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District

This is an opening brief from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Post Oak Clean Green, Inc. (Post Oak), appealing the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction by the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County. The case concerns the Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District's (the District) suit seeking a declaration that Post Oak's proposed landfill violates District Rule 8.1, even though Post Oak's permit application is still under review by the TCEQ. Appellants argue that the District's claim is not ripe, is impermissibly redundant of judicial review remedies, and that the District lacks standing due to a non-redressable injury. They contend that the TCEQ has exclusive or primary jurisdiction over landfill permitting and that District rules cannot supersede a TCEQ permit. The brief requests reversal of the trial court's order and dismissal of the District's suit.

Environmental LawLandfill PermittingGroundwater ConservationJurisdiction DisputeAdministrative LawDeclaratory Judgment ActRipeness DoctrineStanding (Law)Exclusive JurisdictionPrimary Jurisdiction
References
195
Showing 1-10 of 2,410 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