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. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. 04-05-00589-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

the City of San Antonio v. Summerglen Property Owners Association, Inc. Kenneth Carey Joe Cochran William McCrae Karen Pena George Baum And Dan Vana Intervenors, Cheri Franklin Ed Berger Dick Chapman Betty Chapman George Pierce Debra Pierce Randy Gurley

This case involves an interlocutory appeal where the City of San Antonio challenged the standing of a homeowners association and individual property owners to contest the City's proposed annexation of their property. The property owners filed suit seeking declaratory judgment that the annexation was unlawful due to procedural violations of Chapter 43 of the Local Government Code and in violation of House Bill 585. The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The appellate court held that the property owners lacked standing to challenge the annexation, concluding that claims based on procedural defects must be brought via quo warranto proceedings and that H.B. 585, which prohibited the annexation, was an unconstitutional local law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the property owners' claims.

Annexation LawStandingPlea to the JurisdictionDeclaratory ReliefTemporary InjunctionQuo WarrantoLocal Government CodeConstitutional LawSpecial LawLocal Law
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delishi v. Property Owner USA LLC

Plaintiff Haxhi Delishi sued multiple defendants after he slipped and fell at a construction site in New York County on November 14, 2005, while working for Collins Building Services, Inc. He alleged negligence against the named defendants for causing or allowing the dangerous condition (a piece of cardboard covering a metal pipe) or failing to warn him. Several defendants, including Stateside Contracting Co., Inc., Jordan Daniels Electrical Contractors, Inc., Property Owner (USA), LLC, HSBC North America, Inc., and Jones Lang LaSalle Services, Inc., moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and cross-claims against them. Third-party defendant Collins also moved for dismissal of Jones Lang's third-party complaint. The court, presided over by Justice Jack M. Battaglia, denied all motions for summary judgment, finding that none of the moving parties had established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, partly due to issues with inadmissible deposition testimony and insufficient evidence regarding creation of the condition or notice of it.

Slip and FallConstruction Site InjuryWorkplace AccidentSummary Judgment MotionNegligence ClaimCommon-law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationContributionAdmissibility of Deposition TranscriptsDangerous Condition
References
66
Case No. 13-06-086-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2007

John and Betty Hough v. Brownsville Winter Haven Property Owners Association

John and Betty Hough appealed a trial court's summary judgment granted to the Brownsville Winter Haven Property Owners Association regarding alleged restrictive covenant violations. The Association sued to enforce subdivision covenants after the Houghs' porch was deemed to encroach on a side easement following the sale of an adjoining lot. The Houghs argued quasi-estoppel, asserting the Association had acquiesced to the porch's construction and improvements over many years without objection. The appellate court concluded the Houghs conclusively proved the elements of quasi-estoppel and that the Association failed to present evidence to avoid summary judgment on this defense. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for the Association, rendered judgment for the Houghs, and remanded the issue of attorney's fees.

Declaratory JudgmentRestrictive CovenantsArchitectural RulesSummary JudgmentQuasi-EstoppelProperty LawEasementProperty Owners AssociationAppellate ReviewTexas Courts
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2005

City of San Antonio v. Summerglen Property Owners Ass'n

The case involves an interlocutory appeal where the City of San Antonio challenged a trial court's ruling regarding the standing of property owners to contest a proposed annexation. The property owners, including Summerglen Property Owners Association, argued the City violated statutory procedures under Chapter 43 of the Local Government Code and that the annexation was prohibited by House Bill 585. The City contended the property owners lacked standing because procedural challenges require a quo warranto proceeding and H.B. 585 was an unconstitutional local law. The appellate court agreed with the City, holding that claims of procedural defects and arbitration issues did not confer standing to private individuals, as they did not render the annexation 'wholly void.' Crucially, the court also found H.B. 585 to be an unconstitutional local law, as it targeted a specific geographic area within San Antonio's extraterritorial jurisdiction without a reasonable basis. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, vacated the temporary injunction, and dismissed the property owners' claims.

AnnexationStandingQuo WarrantoLocal Government CodeHouse Bill 585Constitutional LawSpecial LawTexas ConstitutionInterlocutory AppealDeclaratory Relief
References
26
Case No. 07-10-0486-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2011

the City of Lubbock, by and Through the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool, as Subrogee v. Lester Payne, Individually and D/B/A Ponderosa Properties and Jarred Pierson and Diana Venice Pierson

A Lubbock police officer, Jarred Pierson, was injured while on duty and received workers' compensation benefits from the City of Lubbock. The City, acting as subrogee, intervened in Pierson's personal injury lawsuit against Ponderosa Apartments, the property owner where the injury occurred. Pierson subsequently non-suited his claims with prejudice, leading Ponderosa to obtain a dismissal of the City's subrogation claims. The City appealed, contending that its statutory subrogation rights should not be extinguished by the employee's voluntary dismissal. The Court of Appeals agreed, emphasizing that once a subrogee's rights are established by payment, they are not defeated by the subrogor's subsequent actions if the tortfeasor knew of the subrogee's claim. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation ClaimDismissal of ClaimsNon-suit with PrejudiceAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier RightsThird-Party LiabilityReal Party in InterestSettlement ImpactRemand for Proceedings
References
21
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. M2020-01417-SC-R23-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2021

Affordable Construction Services, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

Affordable Construction Services, Inc., a general contractor, sued Auto-Owners Insurance Company after the insurer failed to name the contractor as a payee on an insurance proceeds check issued to the insured property owner, Grand Valley Lakes Property Owners Association, Inc., despite damages exceeding $1,000 as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-111. The case, originating from a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, sought to determine if section 56-7-111 provides a private right of action for a general contractor. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the statute does not expressly grant or imply a private right of action. Consequently, the general contractor has no legal standing to sue the insurance company for noncompliance with the statute.

Private Right of ActionStatutory InterpretationInsurance LawGeneral ContractorProperty DamageCertified Question of LawLegislative IntentTennessee Supreme CourtInsurance ProceedsPayee Requirement
References
24
Case No. 01-15-00260-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2015

Joan DeYoung, Stephen DeYoung, M.D., and David DeYoung v. William L. Maynard, Individually and as of the Estate of Judy Page Maynard, and Maynard Properties, L.P.

The DeYoungs, who held ownership interests in Russell, Page & Partners, sued Judy Page Maynard, William L. Maynard, and Maynard Properties, L.P., alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty and care, conversion, and breach of contract. The lawsuit stemmed from the alleged transfer of partnership property to William L. Maynard and Maynard Properties, L.P., without adequate notice or compensation to the other partners. The trial court initially granted the Maynards' no-evidence motion for summary judgment, which was subsequently designated as a final judgment. As appellants, the DeYoungs argue on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error by granting more relief than requested, failing to specify the elements of claims lacking evidence, improperly shifting the burden of proof on self-dealing, and disregarding competent evidence presented by the DeYoungs. They seek a reversal of the trial court's final judgment and a remand for trial on all asserted causes of action.

Summary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyDuty of Loyalty and CareConversionBreach of ContractReal Estate PartnershipProperty TransferSelf-DealingProcedural ErrorAppellate Procedure
References
30
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06165
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2023

Zapototsky v. Ascape Landscape & Constr. Corp.

This case concerns a personal injury action brought by Orest Zapototsky after he slipped on ice at an outlet mall. The plaintiff sued Ascape Landscape & Construction Corp., responsible for snow removal, and the property owners, Simon Property Group, L.P., and Premium Outlet Partners, L.P. The property owners, referred to as the Simon defendants, sought conditional summary judgment on cross-claims against Ascape for contractual indemnification, breach of duty to defend, and attorney's fees, which the Supreme Court denied. Ascape's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing these cross-claims was granted by the lower court. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the Simon defendants' motion, finding triable issues of fact regarding Ascape's contractual performance. However, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by denying Ascape's cross-motion, concluding that Ascape also failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that the accident was unrelated to its services. Thus, the appeals court ruled that triable issues of fact remain concerning Ascape's obligations to indemnify and defend the Simon defendants.

Personal InjurySlip and FallIce Removal ContractContractual IndemnificationBreach of Contractual Duty to DefendAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewSnow Removal
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 6,369 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