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
Dec 27, 2000

West Teleservices, Inc. v. Carney

West Teleservices, Inc. and its affiliated telemarketing companies (appellants) appealed an order granting class certification to their employees (appellees), who allege they were not paid for mandatory pre-shift time. Appellees, including Richard Carney, claim they were required to be present 10-15 minutes before their shifts for instructions and meetings but were not compensated. Appellants acknowledged rounding employee time but asserted employees were not required to perform compensable work before their shifts and knew they would not be paid. The trial court certified three sub-classes, identifying the common issue as whether valuable, unpaid services were performed under circumstances indicating an expectation of payment. The appellate court, reviewing for abuse of discretion, focused on whether common issues predominated over individual ones for class certification. The court found that the individual issue of whether each class member had actual knowledge of the payment policy, which would defeat a quantum meruit claim, predominated over any common issues, particularly since the class representatives themselves admitted such knowledge. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Class ActionClass CertificationPredominance of Individual IssuesQuantum MeruitUnpaid WagesEmployee CompensationTexas Court of AppealsAbuse of DiscretionReversed and RemandedTelemarketing Industry
References
9
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. No. 14-00-01184-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Bowden

This interlocutory appeal concerns a class certification order against Phillips Petroleum Company and its affiliates, initiated by royalty owners. The royalty owners alleged Phillips underpaid royalties through various inter-affiliate transactions. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision, focusing on the predominance of common issues among the subclasses and the adequacy of class representation. The court found that individual issues, such as lease and contract interpretations, predominated over common ones, and identified conflicts of interest among class representatives. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Class ActionRoyalty DisputesOil & Gas LeasesImplied CovenantsExpress CovenantsAdequacy of RepresentationPredominanceTexas LawInterlocutory AppealContract Interpretation
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Entex v. City of Pearland

The case is an interlocutory appeal challenging a trial court's order certifying a class action. The City of Pearland, representing 211 Texas municipalities, sued Entex and Noram Energy Corporation ("Entex") over the interpretation of "gross receipts" in gas utility franchise agreements, seeking a declaratory judgment and damages for alleged underpayment of franchise fees. Entex argued against certification, citing issues with class superiority, manageability, typicality, adequacy of representation, numerosity, commonality, and predominance of common issues. The appellate court, with Justice John S. Anderson presiding, affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in certifying the class, concluding that common questions regarding "gross receipts" predominated and the class action was a superior method of adjudication given the impracticality of individual lawsuits for numerous, financially varied municipalities.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealFranchise AgreementGross ReceiptsMunicipal LawGas UtilityContract InterpretationClass CertificationTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Administaff, Inc. v. Kaster

The plaintiff, a staff leasing company, filed an action in state court asserting both state and federal claims, specifically alleging that the defendants improperly refused to consider it an employer under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act (TUCA). The defendants subsequently removed the case to federal court. The plaintiff then filed a motion to remand, citing the predominance of state law claims, the existence of novel state law issues, and the potential for state law resolution to obviate the need for federal constitutional rulings. The defendants also filed a motion for a more definite statement. The court denied the defendants' motion and granted the plaintiff's motion for remand. The court found that the state law claims clearly predominated and presented a novel issue regarding the definition of an employer under TUCA. Exercising its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and the Pullman abstention doctrine, the court concluded that remanding the entire case to state court would best serve the principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

RemandSupplemental JurisdictionAbstention DoctrineTexas Unemployment Compensation Act (TUCA)Federal Question JurisdictionState Law PredominanceNovel State Law Issues42 U.S.C. § 1983Employer DefinitionStaff Leasing
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. ADJ10715455
Regular
Mar 18, 2019

MICHAEL KAMM vs. COUNTY OF MONTEREY, P.S.I., administered by INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

In this case, the Appeals Board partially rescinded the WCJ's award for psychiatric injury due to inconsistencies in the medical opinion regarding predominant causation. While the Board affirmed the rejection of the good faith personnel action defense, it found Dr. Lopez's opinion lacked clarity on whether employment events were the predominant cause of the applicant's overall psychiatric disability. Therefore, the matter is returned to the WCJ for further development of the medical record to clarify predominant causation before a new decision can be issued.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPsychiatric InjuryPredominant CausationLabor Code Section 3208.3(h)Good Faith Personnel Action DefensePanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Dr. LopezAnxiety DisorderMajor Depression
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham v. Greer

This case involves an appeal from an order dismissing a libel suit filed by Salem Abraham against Daniel Greer and Fix the Facts Foundation d/b/a AgendaWise. The dismissal occurred under Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Texas Supreme Court remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to consider remaining issues, including journalist privilege, the status of Greer and AgendaWise as journalists, and the constitutionality of Chapters 22 and 27 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court of Appeals overruled all issues, affirming the trial court's dismissal. It found that Abraham failed to preserve his complaints regarding the trial court's failure to rule on privilege objections and the journalist status, and concluded that the interplay between Chapters 22 and 27 did not unconstitutionally abridge Abraham's common law remedy for defamation under the open courts provision, as discovery was permissible, albeit limited.

LibelDefamationJournalist PrivilegeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 27Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 22Anti-SLAPP StatuteOpen Courts ProvisionDue ProcessAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
13
Case No. ADJ10301846 ADJ8235335
Regular
Feb 07, 2019

Jack Kessler vs. E. \u0026 J. Gallo Winery

Defendant E. & J. Gallo Winery sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that found applicant Jack Kessler sustained a compensable psychiatric injury. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's finding that industrial factors were the predominant cause of the applicant's psyche injury. The defendant argued the applicant failed to meet the "predominant cause" standard for psychiatric injuries and that combining two separate injuries was impermissible. The Board clarified that the issue of injury causation is distinct from the apportionment of permanent disability, and the applicant's medical evidence met the predominant cause standard.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNew and Further DisabilityPsyche InjuryPredominant CauseLabor Code section 3208.2Labor Code section 3208.3Cumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryApportionment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

BMG DIRECT MARKETING, INC., Appellant, v. Patrick PEAKE, Et Al, Appellee

Patrick Peake, representing himself and a class of BMG Direct music club members, sued BMG Direct Marketing, Inc. over late fees, which was certified by the trial court. BMG appealed the class certification, arguing individual issues related to the voluntary payment rule would predominate. The appellate court found that the trial court adequately considered the voluntary payment defense, concluding it would apply uniformly to the class, making it a common issue. BMG also challenged Peake's typicality and adequacy as a class representative, but the court determined these were substantive issues not appropriate for an interlocutory appeal of class certification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant class certification.

Class ActionVoluntary Payment RuleClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealPredominanceTypicalityAdequacy of RepresentationLate FeesConsumer RightsTexas Civil Procedure
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 11,944 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