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. 11-11-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2013

Michelle Smith v. Richard Lee Killion, Killion Investments, Inc., and Killion Partners

This case involves a dispute over adjoining rural properties in Stephens County, Texas, between Michelle Smith (Appellant) and Richard Lee Killion, Killion Investments, Inc., and Killion Partners (Appellees). Smith initially sued for trespass and to quiet title to mineral interests and challenged a water pipeline easement. Appellees counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment for property rights and asserting an easement by estoppel, implication, or prescription. The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees, establishing a prescriptive easement and awarding attorneys' fees. On appeal, the court remanded the mineral interest issue because the trial court had not disposed of it, modified the judgment to delete appellate attorneys' fees due to a lack of evidence of their reasonableness or necessity, and affirmed the trial court's ruling on the pipeline easement, finding no error in the prescriptive easement declaration despite Smith's claim of abandonment by nonuse.

Real PropertyEasement DisputeSummary Judgment ReviewAppellate Attorneys' FeesMineral RightsTrespass to Try TitleQuiet Title ActionDeclaratory JudgmentAbandonment of EasementPrescriptive Easement
References
26
Case No. E2004-01895-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2005

Walker Gray Haun v. Louis Eugene Haun, Jr.

This appeal resolves a property dispute between brothers Walker Gray Haun and Louis Eugene Haun, Jr. Walker sought an easement across Louis's property to access a rental house, citing a long-standing roadway. The trial court granted an easement by prescription or implication. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, finding Walker did not establish a prescriptive easement but successfully proved the elements for an easement by implication. The court determined the roadway was reasonably necessary for beneficial enjoyment of Walker's property due to the prohibitive cost of constructing an alternative access.

Easement by ImplicationPrescriptive EasementProperty DisputeReal Estate LawAccess RoadwayAffirmed JudgmentSeparation of TitleNecessity DoctrineUnreasonable ExpenseAppellate Review
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burgher v. AF III Properties, LLC

Plaintiffs, who operate an automotive repair shop adjacent to defendant's shopping center, commenced an action alleging that defendant's property improvements (repaving a driveway and repairing a roof) diverted surface water onto their property, causing damage and interfering with their right-of-way. They also claimed trespass. Plaintiffs sought money damages, an alteration of defendant's drainage system, and a declaration of a perpetual prescriptive easement. The Supreme Court granted a prescriptive easement but otherwise denied summary judgment on the water diversion and trespass claims due to unresolved factual issues. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that questions of fact existed regarding whether artificial means were used to divert water and whether defendant directed workers to trespass on plaintiffs' property.

Property disputeRight-of-wayPrescriptive easementSurface water diversionTrespassSummary judgmentAppellate reviewReal propertyLand useDrainage
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Noell v. City of Carrollton

This dispute involves claims by homeowners in the Air Park Dallas community against a real estate developer, the zoning committee, and the City of Carrollton. The City ordered the airpark's airport closed after annexing a portion of it and passing an ordinance. Homeowners sued the developer and zoning committee for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and interference with easements, and sued the City challenging the ordinance and closure order. Noell, a homeowner and minority owner of the developer, also challenged the ordinance. The trial court invalidated the closure order and granted relief to homeowners. On appeal, the court affirmed the invalidation of the closure order, reversed the finding that the ordinance was facially valid, and remanded some claims to the trial court. It also modified part of the injunctive relief against the developer and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.

Airpark CommunityEasement RightsMunicipal ZoningNuisance AbatementDue ProcessConstitutional LawContract BreachFiduciary DutyProperty RestrictionsOrdinance Vagueness
References
84
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Freeman v. Walther

Plaintiff and defendants own adjacent parcels of property in Schoharie County. A dispute arose regarding defendants' use of a pipeline across plaintiff's property to access water from a pond, a practice that had existed since at least 1964. Plaintiff commenced an action challenging defendants' claimed easement rights and seeking damages for trespass, while defendants asserted various counterclaims including express and implied easements. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to plaintiff, dismissing defendants' counterclaims, finding the express easement extinguished by common ownership and insufficient necessity for an implied easement. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the express easement claims but reversed the dismissal of the implied easement and damages counterclaims, citing unresolved material issues of fact regarding the reasonable necessity of the easement.

EasementImplied EasementExpress EasementCommon OwnershipProperty DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewReal PropertyPipeline AccessWater Rights
References
13
Case No. 04-24-00757-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2026

Luckenbach Ranch, LLC and Firefly Partners, LLC D/B/A Firefly Partners Land, LLC v. Troy Bowling and Kim Bowling

This case involves an appeal by Luckenbach Ranch, LLC and Firefly Partners, LLC from a final judgment recognizing and defining a road easement in favor of Troy Bowling and Kim Bowling. The dispute originated from a 2019 private road maintenance agreement between Wendy Williams (seller of a portion of land to the Bowlings and later the remainder to Luckenbach) and the Bowlings. The appellants argued that the agreement violated the statute of frauds due to an insufficient description of the easement and that the scope of the easement was too narrow. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the agreement sufficiently identified the servient estate for the express easement and that the language 'access and maintain road entry for easement purposes' was sufficient to grant a road easement. The court also addressed the relocation of the easement's entrance, noting it was declared in the final judgment following a bench trial where Luckenbach stipulated to the move.

Easement LawStatute of FraudsExpress EasementEasement by EstoppelEstoppel by DeedProperty LawReal EstateSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRoad Easement
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Milligan v. Niebuhr

Gene Milligan appealed a trial court's ruling that an easement he held across land owned by his ex-spouse, Marilisa Niebuhr, was terminated by their 1995 divorce decree. Milligan had purchased an 8.98-acre tract ("Peach Orchard") with an easement across Lot 13 for river access. Niebuhr later purchased Lot 13, and they married and divorced. The divorce decree awarded Lot 13 to Niebuhr and the Peach Orchard to Milligan, explicitly divesting each of all rights, title, and interest in the property awarded to the other. Milligan continued using the easement, leading to a dispute. The trial court found the easement terminated, and the appellate court affirmed, interpreting the agreed divorce decree as a contract that unambiguously divested Milligan of any interest in Lot 13, including the easement, as an easement is an interest in the servient estate.

EasementDivorce DecreeContract InterpretationProperty DivisionReal Estate LawAppellate ReviewServient EstateDominant EstateAbandonment of EasementInjunctive Relief
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Baghai-Kermani

This case concerns an appeal from two Supreme Court orders regarding a defendant's conviction for criminal sale of prescription for a controlled substance. The trial court initially granted the defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to set aside his conviction due to Rosario material violations, but denied his motion on jurisdictional grounds. On appeal, the higher court modified the Rosario order, reinstating most of the convictions, arguing that the Rosario violation for two counts did not necessarily taint the entire indictment. The court affirmed the denial of the jurisdictional motion, holding that the Attorney-General had broad jurisdiction under Executive Law § 63 (3) to prosecute the defendant for offenses connected with Medicaid, despite the defendant no longer being a Medicaid provider.

Criminal Sale of Controlled SubstanceCPL 440.10Rosario MaterialBrady v MarylandJurisdictionExecutive Law § 63 (3)Medicaid FraudAppellate ReviewBench TrialSelf-representation
References
6
Case No. 02-19-00042-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2020

Atmos Energy Corporation v. Charles L. Paul

This appeal involves a dispute over the interpretation of a 1960 easement agreement that grants a right-of-way for a grantee to construct, maintain, and operate pipelines over and through 137 acres of property. Appellee Charles L. Paul currently owns a portion of this property. Atmos Energy Corporation, the current owner of the easement, sued Paul for violating the easement agreement after he denied Atmos access to construct a new pipeline. The probate court granted summary judgment in Paul’s favor, rendering judgment that Atmos take nothing. The appellate court reversed, finding that the unambiguous easement agreement created a multiple pipeline blanket easement that does not require additional pipelines to be laid along the same path as the first, and that Paul did not conclusively establish that the new pipeline unreasonably burdened his property. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Easement AgreementPipeline EasementBlanket EasementMultiple PipelinesContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentProperty RightsServient EstateDominant EstateReasonable Necessity Test
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saratoga County Water Authority v. Gibeault

The County of Saratoga obtained easements for a water line project and retained Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. to assist. The easements were assigned to the plaintiff, a public water authority. Adjacent property owners, the Gibeaults, disputed ownership of some land covered by the easements and filed a correction deed. The plaintiff initiated an action against the Gibeaults seeking judgment under RPAPL article 15 and a declaratory judgment concerning the easements, an injunction, and damages. The Gibeaults counterclaimed, alleging trespass and taking. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a third-party action against Malcolm Pirnie for indemnification and contribution. Supreme Court denied Malcolm Pirnie's cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against it. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that genuine issues of fact remained regarding Malcolm Pirnie's alleged negligence in procuring the easements, particularly concerning their awareness of the Gibeaults' ownership claims. The court also rejected Malcolm Pirnie's argument of judicial estoppel.

EasementsProperty RightsSummary JudgmentNegligenceIndemnificationContributionJudicial EstoppelBoundary DisputesThird-Party ActionAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 171 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