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. 04-08-00587-CV; 04-08-00857-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Valverde v. Biela's Glass & Aluminum Products, Inc.

Sonia Valverde was injured in 2005 when a door fell on her while working. She initially sued P.S.I. Total Facility, Inc., the contractor, and Ingram Park Mall, L.P., the premises owner. P.S.I. later designated Biela’s Glass & Aluminum Products, Inc. and Alert Lock & Key as responsible third parties. Valverde then amended her petition to include negligence claims against Biela’s and Alert, but the trial court granted summary judgment in their favor, citing the statute of limitations and later, res judicata. On appeal, the court reversed these judgments, holding that the 60-day period for joining responsible third parties began when the court formally ordered the designation, not when the motion was filed, thus making Valverde's claims timely. Both causes were remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsRes JudicataResponsible Third PartyJoinderNegligenceAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil PracticeCourt OrderRemand
References
11
Case No. 04-08-00587-CV, 04-08-00857-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2009

Sonia Valverde v. Biela's Glass & Aluminum Products, Inc. and Alert Lock and Key

A case consolidated on appeal where Sonia Valverde challenged the trial court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of Biela's Glass & Aluminum Products, Inc. and Alert Lock & Key. Valverde was injured when a door fell on her and later amended her petition to add negligence claims against Biela’s and Alert, who were designated as responsible third parties. The trial court granted summary judgments based on statute of limitations and res judicata. The appellate court reversed both judgments, clarifying that the 60-day period for joining responsible third parties commences from the date the trial court actually grants the motion for designation, not from the date the motion was filed or when an objection period expires. Consequently, Valverde's claims were timely, nullifying the res judicata defense. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsRes JudicataResponsible Third PartyAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeNegligence ClaimsJoinder of PartiesTrial Court ErrorRemand
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crew One Productions, Inc. v. State

This is an employment tax case where the State of Tennessee appealed a decision by the Tennessee Claims Commission. The Commission had ruled that Crew One Productions was not liable for Tennessee employment tax, citing a federal safe harbor provision known as section 530. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that Tennessee is not bound by the federal safe harbor provision. The court emphasized that while Tennessee's Employment Security Law is to be construed 'in pari materia' with federal law, this does not require incorporating every federal relief provision, especially those designed as temporary measures for federal enforcement issues.

Employment TaxFederal Safe HarborSection 530Independent Contractor ClassificationState Employment Tax LiabilityStatutory InterpretationIn Pari MateriaUnemployment CompensationTax AppealWorkers Classification
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1994

Twyford v. Production Associates, Inc.

Production Associates, Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, which granted McDonald’s Corporation’s motion to dismiss a third-party complaint. The primary action involved Thomas E. Twyford, a McDonald's employee, who sued Production Associates for injuries suffered at a convention. Production Associates then sought contribution from McDonald's. The Supreme Court initially applied Pennsylvania law, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that Illinois law should apply based on an 'interests analysis' approach, as both Production Associates and McDonald's have significant ties to Illinois. Illinois workers' compensation law, unlike Pennsylvania's or New Jersey's, does not preclude third-party contribution claims against an employer.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionWorkers' CompensationChoice of LawConflict of LawsContribution ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois LawPennsylvania Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Positive Productions

Jonathan Smith, known as Lil Jon, petitioned the District Court to vacate or modify an arbitration award in favor of Positive Productions, a Japanese concert promoter. The dispute arose from Smith's failure to perform three concerts in Japan as per initial and rescheduled agreements, leading to their cancellation. The International Centre for Dispute Resolution arbitrator, Mark Diamond, awarded Positive Productions $379,874.00 for lost profits, expenses, legal fees, and loss of reputation. Smith argued improper notice of arbitration, lack of arbitrator jurisdiction, and manifest disregard of New York law regarding damages. The District Court, presided by Judge Mukasey, denied Smith's petition and granted Positive Productions' cross-petition to confirm the award, finding that Smith received sufficient notice, the arbitrator had jurisdiction, and the damage awards were justified under the law.

Arbitration AwardContract BreachLost ProfitsExpensesReputation DamagesAttorneys' FeesNoticeJurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActNew York Law
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amity Leather Products Co. v. RGA Accessories, Inc.

Amity Leather Products Co. moved to hold RGA Accessories, Inc. in civil contempt for violating a prior injunction that prohibited RGA from using Amity's product photographs for its own competing products. Amity alleged RGA used a photo of its 'Macro bag' to promote the 'Petite Valise' through their joint venture, Smithy Accessories. The court found clear and convincing evidence of the violation, noting identical markings on the products in photographs. It rejected RGA's defenses of diligence and shifting blame to its joint venture partner. The court granted Amity's motion, ordering RGA to account for and pay profits from sales to J.C. Penney, cease further use of the promotional material, and issue a disclaimer to all recipients.

Contempt of CourtInjunction ViolationLanham ActFalse AdvertisingJoint Venture LiabilityCivil ContemptUnjust EnrichmentCease and DesistDisclaimerPhotographic Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cupples Products Co. v. Marshall

Diana Wright filed a gross negligence claim against Cupples Products, her husband’s employer, after his death, subsequent to settling a workers’ compensation claim with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Cupples’ insurer. Wright sought discovery from Liberty Mutual, requesting statements, reports, photographs, diagrams, sketches, and accident/inspection reports related to her husband's accident. The trial court, presided over by Judge John McClellan Marshall, ordered the production of these documents for an in camera inspection. Cupples Products and Liberty Mutual, as relators, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, contending that the documents were exempt from discovery under TEX.R.CIV.P. 166b(3)(b) and (d), arguing they were privileged communications made in connection with the investigation of the occurrence. The appellate court agreed with the relators, holding that any investigation by an agent of a party, made subsequent to the occurrence out of which the claim has arisen, is privileged and exempt from discovery, even if it was initially for a different claim (workers' compensation). The court conditionally granted the petition for the writ of mandamus, expecting the trial judge to vacate the discovery orders.

Discovery DisputeMandamusPrivileged CommunicationsWork Product DoctrineGross NegligenceWorkers' CompensationInsurance InvestigationTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureIn Camera InspectionWitness Statements
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Relco, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Thomas Doss and Releo, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed an action seeking to enjoin the Consumers Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from enforcing certain sections of the Consumers Product Safety Act against their product, the "Wel-Dex" arc welder, and requested a three-judge panel for constitutional questions. The CPSC had issued a public warning about the Wel-Dex after an investigation, despite the plaintiffs' attempts to secure a prior hearing. The plaintiffs challenged the CPSC's delegation of authority for issuing such warnings and sought pre-enforcement judicial review. The court, presided over by District Judge Noel, determined that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies and that the matter was not ripe for judicial review. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the cause was dismissed.

Consumer Product Safety ActAdministrative LawAgency DiscretionSubdelegation of AuthorityPublic WarningPre-enforcement ReviewExhaustion of Administrative RemediesRipeness for ReviewThree-Judge CourtDue Process
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

La Villa Independent School District v. Gomez Garza Design, Inc.

La Villa Independent School District appealed a judgment in favor of Gomez Garza Design, Inc. for breach of contract. The case stemmed from a 1995 agreement for architectural services, where a dispute arose when La Villa hired another firm for a new elementary school project after Garza Design had commenced preliminary work under the existing contract. The trial court's judgment, based on a jury finding, awarded Garza Design $52,850.00. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that sufficient evidence supported the jury's conclusions regarding the existence of a valid contract, the superintendent's authority to bind the school district, and the calculation of damages. The court also determined that the contract did not violate the Professional Services Procurement Act.

Breach of contractArchitectural servicesSchool districtSuperintendent authorityContract validityProfessional Services Procurement ActDamagesJury findingsJudgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)Estoppel
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dodd v. Texas Farm Products

Appellant Dodd sued Texas Farm Products Co. for personal injuries sustained when a retaining wall and potash collapsed on him after he and a co-worker blasted to loosen material. A jury initially found appellee negligent for failing to inspect the wall after the blast, awarding $86,000 in damages, and did not find Dodd contributorily negligent. However, the trial court granted appellee's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding there was no evidence that Texas Farm Products Co. knew or should have known of the dangerous condition of the retaining wall, which was apparently caused by the explosion set off by the appellant and his foreman.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoJury VerdictAppellate ReviewIndustrial AccidentEmployer's DutyHidden DangerAssumption of Risk
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,876 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