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. E2017-00844-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2019

Vic Davis Construction, Inc. v. Lauren Engineers & Constructors, Inc.

A subcontractor (Vic Davis Construction, Inc.) sued the general contractor (Lauren Engineers & Constructors, Inc.) for breach of contract and Prompt Pay Act violations, seeking damages and contract reformation. The trial court reformed the subcontract due to mutual mistake and granted summary judgment to the general contractor on fraud and punitive damages claims. Following a bench trial, the subcontractor was awarded judgment on its breach of contract claim, and the general contractor's counterclaim was dismissed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions, finding no error in the dismissal of fraud and punitive damages claims, upholding the finding that the general contractor committed the first material breach, and affirming decisions under the Prompt Pay Act.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractPrompt Pay ActSubcontractorGeneral ContractorMutual MistakeSummary JudgmentFraud ClaimsPunitive DamagesAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. 01-19-00971-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Patriot Contracting, LLC and Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Shelter Products, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Patriot Contracting, LLC (general contractor) and Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America (surety) challenging a trial court's judgment. The judgment was in favor of appellees Shelter Products, Inc. (material supplier) and Kancor Companies, LLC (subcontractor). The original suit involved claims for breach of contract, statutory violations under the Texas Construction Trust Fund Act and Texas Public Prompt Pay Act, and judicial foreclosure of mechanic's and materialman's liens. The core dispute stemmed from Patriot's alleged failure to pay Kancor for work on the Temenos project, which in turn led to Kancor's inability to pay Shelter for materials. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's findings on Mary Carter agreements, sufficiency of evidence regarding material breach, improper jury argument, jury charge errors, perfection of liens, attorney's fees, pre-judgment interest, and declaratory judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety.

Construction LawBreach of ContractPayment BondMechanic's LienMaterialman's LienTexas Construction Trust Fund ActTexas Public Prompt Pay ActAppellate ReviewDirected VerdictJury Instruction
References
69
Case No. 08-02-00452-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2003

Jesse Davila v. Pay & Save Corporation D/B/A Lowe's Market Place, Inc.

Jesse Davila appealed a summary judgment against him in favor of his former employer, Pay & Save Corporation, doing business as Lowe's Market Place, Inc. Davila was fired after another employee accused him of sexual harassment. He sued Pay & Save, alleging defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for Pay & Save on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Davila failed to establish error regarding his claims, and denied Pay & Save's motion for damages for frivolous appeal.

Sexual HarassmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealDefamation ClaimNegligence ClaimInvasion of PrivacyFraud AllegationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer LiabilityScope of Employment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Wagner & Russeks Fifth Avenue, Inc.

The court denied a motion to confirm an arbitration award due to improper acknowledgment under Civil Practice Act § 1460. The respondent's cross-motion to vacate the award was granted. While arguments regarding exhausted arbitrator powers and excessive damages were rejected, the court found the arbitrator guilty of "misbehavior" under Civil Practice Act § 1462(3) due to an unreasonable delay in rendering the decision. This delay, from March 3 to August 20, 1948, prejudiced the employer by awarding substantial back pay to a rightfully discharged employee for a period largely covered by the arbitrator's inaction. The matter was remitted to the arbitrator for a rehearing to reassess back pay, which should not extend beyond the date a prompt decision was due.

ArbitrationAward ConfirmationAward VacaturCivil Practice ActArbitrator MisconductUndue DelayLabor AgreementBack PayDeed AcknowledgmentReal Property Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walling v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry.

The case determines whether railway trainees ("cubs" and "posters") are considered "employees" under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The plaintiff Administrator sought injunctive relief to compel the defendant railway to comply with the Act for these trainees, arguing they should be compensated and records kept. The court found that trainees primarily work for their own benefit and receive no measurable benefit for the company, thus lacking a contract of employment. Payments made to "cub" trainees were deemed gratuities or incentive pay, not wages that would establish an employer-employee relationship. Consequently, the court held that neither "cub" nor "poster" trainees are "employees" under the Act, and even if they were, the company's current practices largely comply with the Act. Therefore, judgment was entered for the defendant railway, denying the Administrator's request for injunctive relief.

Fair Labor Standards ActEmployee StatusTraineesRailway IndustryCubbingPostingGratuity vs. WagesInjunctive ReliefEmployer-Employee RelationshipContract of Employment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2013

Sauceda v. University of Texas

Plaintiff Mary Jane Sauceda, an associate professor at The University of Texas at Brownsville’s School of Business, alleged unlawful pay discrimination based on sex and national origin. She brought claims under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and the federal Equal Pay Act of 1963. The Court dismissed her TCHRA claim as time-barred, finding no cognizable act of intentional discrimination occurred within the 180-day limitations period. However, the Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Equal Pay Act claim, concluding that genuine fact issues exist regarding the defendant's affirmative defense that salary differentials were based on factors other than sex. The case will proceed on the Equal Pay Act claim.

Equal Pay ActNational Origin DiscriminationSex DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActStatute of LimitationsAdministrative RemediesSalary DiscriminationMarket Forces DefenseAcademic Employment
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russell v. Belmont College

Dr. Anne L. Russell, a former assistant professor at Belmont College, filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against the college and its officials, alleging discriminatory discharge and treatment in compensation under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. She also brought several pendent state claims, including breach of contract and defamation. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the Equal Pay Act did not apply to church-controlled colleges and that Dr. Russell's Title VII claim was untimely. The Court denied summary judgment on the Equal Pay Act and Title VII claims, finding the Equal Pay Act applicable to Belmont College and Dr. Russell's EEOC charge timely filed. However, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff's pendent state law claims, concluding she failed to demonstrate disputed issues of material fact.

Sex DiscriminationTitle VIIEqual Pay ActReligious InstitutionsFirst AmendmentFree Exercise ClauseEstablishment ClauseSummary JudgmentEEOC TimelinessPendent State Claims
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2007

Heinemann v. Howe & Rusling

Plaintiff Marion Heinemann sued her former employer, Howe & Rusling, Inc., and several individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as retaliation and Equal Pay Act violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court denied summary judgment for the plaintiff's Title VII claims (sex discrimination and retaliation) and the Equal Pay Act claim, finding sufficient evidence of pretext and discriminatory intent to warrant a jury trial. However, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims, concluding that the plaintiff failed to present enough evidence for these specific allegations. The case will proceed to trial on the sex discrimination, retaliation, and Equal Pay Act claims.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationEqual Pay ActSummary Judgment MotionFederal CourtWestern District of New YorkWorkplace HarassmentPerformance ManagementAdverse Employment Action
References
56
Showing 1-10 of 9,320 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