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

Mitchell v. Mitchell

This case addresses whether prejudgment interest, awarded to a former wife from a former husband based on a disputed property settlement agreement, needs to be specifically pleaded as special damages under Rule 9.07 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeals had ruled that such pleading was necessary. However, the Supreme Court of Tennessee concluded that the award of prejudgment interest was authorized under a prayer for general relief, considering it a necessary result of the failure to pay an obligation. The Court likened prejudgment interest to attorney's fees, which are discretionary and do not always require special pleading when the amount is certain or ascertainable. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed.

Prejudgment InterestSpecial DamagesGeneral DamagesDivorce DecreeProperty Settlement AgreementRules of Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewEquityDiscretionary AwardAttorney's Fees
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2011

United States Ex Rel. Lamesa National Bank v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (In Re Schooler)

This memorandum opinion addresses the motion for prejudgment interest filed by Lamesa National Bank (LNB) against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Liberty Mutual was previously found liable to the bankruptcy estate of Robert and Tina Schooler for $112,247.66. The court exercised its discretion to award prejudgment interest, citing federal law and a strong presumption in favor of such awards, which aim to compensate the estate for the loss of funds. Adopting guidance from state law for the interest rate, the court set it at 5.0% compounded annually, with accrual commencing from the complaint's filing date of September 8, 2009.

Prejudgment InterestBankruptcy EstateFederal LawDiscretionary AwardAccrual DateInterest RateFifth CircuitNorthern District of TexasBankruptcy CodeInsurance Liability
References
15
Case No. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

This memorandum opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer claims recovered by Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., as Trustee for the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, against the Boulder Defendants. The Court determined that three transfers in 2005 and 2006 were fraudulent under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. It concludes that the Trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the adversary proceeding commencement date, March 20, 2009, at the bank prime loan rates in effect on the dates of each transfer (6.5%, 8.0%, and 8.25%). Additionally, the Trustee is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal judgment rate, and a final judgment is to be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1993

C & H NATIONWIDE, INC. v. Thompson

This case concerns the allocation of liability among defendants under Texas's Comparative Responsibility Law in a wrongful death action. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the lower court's judgment regarding the calculation of prejudgment interest, the sufficiency of evidence for lost inheritance damages, and the principles of contribution among jointly and severally liable defendants. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case, holding that prejudgment interest applies to the entire judgment including future damages, and found no evidence to support the award of lost inheritance damages. It also clarified the rules for contribution among defendants.

Wrongful DeathComparative ResponsibilityPrejudgment InterestFuture DamagesLost InheritanceSettlementContributionTort LawStatutory InterpretationDue Process
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Srite v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

This opinion addresses an appeal from nine consolidated asbestos cases where a jury found liability but awarded no past damages to several plaintiffs. The court, HEDGES, Justice, reviewed the proper standard of appellate review for zero damages verdicts, distinguishing between objective and subjective symptoms of injury and adhering to the Pool v. Ford Motor Co. standard. The court upheld the jury's zero past damages awards for most plaintiffs, finding them not against the great weight of the evidence. However, it reversed the trial court's application of the statute of limitations to the Spikes family's claim, remanding it for further proceedings. Additionally, the court sustained the point of error regarding prejudgment interest calculation, ruling that under Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., interest should accrue six months after the last day of asbestos exposure, rather than six months after the lawsuit filing date, and remanded the Burt and Friley cases for recalculation. The court also addressed, but did not rule on the merits of, an expert testimony admissibility challenge due to procedural errors by the plaintiffs.

Asbestos litigationzero damagesprejudgment interestappellate reviewcomparative negligencestrict liabilitylatent diseasestatute of limitationsexpert testimonymedical examination
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of M.C.R.

This case involves an appeal by the Attorney General challenging a district court's allocation of prejudgment interest on child support arrearages owed by Lisa Harris to Michael Riou. Initially, a child support master awarded the arrearages but split the accrued interest equally between Harris and Riou, seeking an equitable resolution. The district court adopted this ruling. The appellate court, finding the Attorney General had standing due to its role as a Title IV-D agency and an assignment of rights, determined that the trial court lacked the discretion to modify or reduce statutory prejudgment interest on child support arrearages. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and remanded for recalculation to include all accrued interest.

child supportprejudgment interestchild support arrearagesstandingFamily Codeappellate reviewjudicial discretionequityTexas lawTitle IV-D services
References
28
Case No. 13-06-112-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2008

Michael Gibney, Individually and on Behalf of Micro Blend, Inc. v. Roy Culver, Jr., Culver Interests and Ana-Tech, Inc.

Michael Gibney, individually and on behalf of Micro-Blend, Inc., appealed a judgment from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas. Gibney had filed a shareholder derivative suit for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and an individual claim for shareholder oppression against Roy Culver, Jr., Culver Interests, and Ana-Tech, Inc. The trial court awarded Gibney $250,000 for shareholder oppression but dismissed his derivative claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Gibney's derivative claims, finding them time-barred or lacking evidence for damages. The court also reversed the finding of shareholder oppression, concluding there was insufficient evidence for excessive compensation and no other acts constituting oppression, rendering a take-nothing judgment for Roy Culver, Jr. Finally, Gibney's request for prejudgment interest was denied.

Shareholder Derivative SuitFraud ClaimsBreach of Fiduciary DutyShareholder OppressionDirected VerdictStatute of LimitationsFraudulent ConcealmentDiscovery RuleExcessive CompensationClose Corporation
References
43
Case No. 02-15-00176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2015

in the Interest of A.P., a Child

This is an appeal from a trial court's order terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their child, Timmy (A.P.). Mother and Father challenged the termination, arguing issues of involuntary relinquishment, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that termination was not in the child's best interest. The Department of Family and Protective Services presented evidence of parental drug use, criminal history, mental health issues, and an unstable home environment, leading to the child's removal multiple times. Both parents eventually signed affidavits of voluntary relinquishment of parental rights, which they later attempted to revoke, claiming duress or ineffective assistance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying new trials and that the signed relinquishment affidavits were sufficient to support the best interest finding for the child.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyAffidavit of RelinquishmentIneffective Assistance of CounselDuressChild Best InterestDrug UseCriminal HistoryMental HealthAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vidor Walgreen Pharmacy v. Fisher

This case involves an appeal concerning the award of prejudgment interest in a personal injury action stemming from a rear-end automobile collision. The Appellant, Vidor Walgreen Pharmacy, contended that the award of prejudgment interest was erroneous because the Appellee, Janet Fisher, failed to specifically plead for it, thereby waiving her right to such interest. The court disagreed, referencing the seminal Texas Supreme Court decision in Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., which established prejudgment interest as a matter of law for prevailing plaintiffs in both wrongful death and non-death personal injury cases. The court emphasized that Cavnar's ruling obviated the need for a detailed, specific pleading for prejudgment interest and provided a precise method for its calculation. Additionally, the court found no evidence of harm or surprise to the defendant, given that the trial occurred nearly a year after the Cavnar decision. Consequently, the judgment awarding prejudgment interest was affirmed.

Prejudgment InterestPersonal Injury DamagesAutomobile AccidentAppellate ReviewTexas Supreme Court PrecedentCavnar v. Quality Control ParkingPleading RequirementsWaiver of RightsWorkers' CompensationStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. 03-16-00270-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2016

AC Interests L.P., Formerly American Coatings, L.P. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

AC Interests, L.P. appeals the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) concerning the denial of emission credits. AC Interests argues that the TCEQ's motion to dismiss under Rule 91a was improperly granted, as their claims have a basis in both law and fact. They contend that their application for emission credit certification met all legal requirements, and the TCEQ's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, AC Interests highlights that the Commission has since indicated a willingness to allow emission credits for area sources, which they are classified as. The appellant asserts that procedural issues, including a shortened appeal time and an alleged violation of due process, unduly harmed their ability to obtain earned emission credits. AC Interests seeks a reversal of the district court's dismissal to pursue its claim for vested property rights in emission credits.

Emission CreditsEnvironmental LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTCEQArea SourcesMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedureAir PollutionVOC Emissions
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 2,680 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