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. 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. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. 03-15-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2015

California Insurance Guarantee Association, Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc.

The appellants, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (OPCIGA), and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA), collectively "Guaranty Associations," are appealing a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellee, Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc. ("Hill Bros."). The suit was filed on March 31, 2009, alleging Hill Bros. failed to reimburse the Guaranty Associations for payments of workers' compensation benefits and claim handling expenses within the deductible limits of a policy issued by the insolvent Legion Insurance Company ("Legion"). The District Court granted summary judgment to Hill Bros. based on the statute of limitations, ruling that the cause of action accrued on April 1, 2002. The Guaranty Associations argue that the accrual date is incorrect, as their statutory obligations had not been triggered, payments had not been made, and demand for reimbursement had not occurred by that date. They also contend that their compliance with Pennsylvania law (the "Pennsylvania Act") in seeking reimbursement through Legion in Liquidation constitutes a mitigating circumstance for any delay, making reasonableness a fact question. Furthermore, they assert the policy was a continuing contract, and the statute of limitations should not have accrued until full performance on April 28, 2009. Alternatively, they argue that claims for deductible payments made within four years of filing suit (March 31, 2005) are not barred.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Guaranty AssociationStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeductible ReimbursementInsolvencyInsurance PolicyContinuing ContractPennsylvania ActTravis County
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leban Store Fixture Co. v. Properties

The plaintiff, a secured creditor, sold equipment to Picnic Parlor of Westbury, Inc. via a conditional sales agreement. Picnic Parlor defaulted and abandoned the premises owned by August Properties, Inc. August Properties subsequently refused the plaintiff access to remove the collateral unless demands for rent arrears, insurance, and a cash bond were met. The plaintiff complied with the bond and proof of ownership requests but refused rent and insurance, arguing it was not the tenant. The plaintiff then initiated a conversion action against August Properties. The trial court found August Properties liable for unreasonably interfering with the plaintiff's immediate right to possession of the collateral. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing UCC 9-503 and 9-313 (8), stating that a landlord cannot refuse a secured party permission to remove collateral if statutory requirements are met, beyond requesting proof of ownership and a removal bond.

Conversion of personal propertySecured creditor rightsUCC Article 9Landlord-tenant disputeDefault on security agreementRight to possession of collateralUnreasonable interferenceAuctioneer's saleConditional sales agreementReal estate owner obligations
References
7
Case No. 03-07-00240-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2008

Myrad Properties, Inc. v. Lasalle Bank National Ass'n

Myrad Properties, Inc. appealed a summary judgment concerning the non-judicial foreclosure of two apartment complexes, La Casa and Casa Grande, secured by a single note. The central dispute involved an error in the foreclosure notice that only described one property. The court determined that despite the inconsistency, references to the Deed of Trust provided sufficient notice for both properties. The lower court's judgment, affirming the conveyance of both properties and the validity of the correction deed, was largely upheld. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the claim for a surplus due to Myrad, citing unresolved fact issues regarding the calculation of Myrad's outstanding debt.

ForeclosureNon-judicial foreclosureDeed of TrustProperty description errorSummary judgmentReal propertyApartment complexesSubstitute trusteeNotice of saleCorrection deed
References
29
Case No. 03-01-00084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2002

John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C./Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association/John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C.

This case involves cross-appeals from a judgment by the District Court of Travis County. John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C. (Berkel) sued the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA) and a receiver, seeking to enforce a contract for $6,306, which represented a previously approved "covered claim" for legal services. The trial court awarded Berkel the $6,306 but denied claims for statutory attorney's fees, prejudgment, and postjudgment interest. TPCIGA appealed the $6,306 award, arguing the claim was not a covered claim, but the appellate court affirmed this part, holding the Receiver's prior determination was binding. Berkel appealed the denial of attorney's fees and interest, and the appellate court reversed and remanded this part for further proceedings.

Insurance LawReceivershipImpaired InsurerCovered ClaimsStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesPrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestSummary JudgmentContract Enforcement
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Masterson v. Diocese of Northwest Texas

This Texas Supreme Court opinion addresses a church property dispute involving The Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd. A majority of the local congregation voted to withdraw from The Episcopal Church of the United States (TEC) and the Episcopal Diocese of Northwest Texas due to doctrinal differences, renaming itself the Anglican Church of the Good Shepherd. The Diocese and loyal faction (Episcopal Leaders) sued to gain control of the property. The Court held that Texas courts must apply 'neutral principles of law' to resolve church property disputes, rather than deferring to hierarchical church decisions on property ownership. The previous summary judgment in favor of the Episcopal Leaders, based on the deference methodology, was reversed. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the neutral principles approach, focusing on corporate bylaws, deeds, and state law regarding property and trusts.

Church Property DisputeNeutral Principles of LawDeference MethodologyFirst AmendmentFreedom of ReligionHierarchical ChurchTexas Supreme CourtCorporate GovernanceNon-Profit CorporationsTrust Law
References
59
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,578 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