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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holick v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of Sales Representatives, initiated an action against defendants Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. and Cellular Sales of New York, L.L.C., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. They claimed misclassification as independent contractors, which led to a deprivation of guaranteed compensation, including minimum wage and overtime. Defendants responded with motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and alternatively, to compel mediation/arbitration based on clauses in the sales agreements. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming its power to adjudicate FLSA claims. However, it granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, determining that the mediation clauses were valid, unwaived, and that FLSA claims are arbitrable under federal law, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. All other pending motions, including plaintiffs' request for conditional collective action certification, were subsequently denied as moot.

FLSALabor LawMisclassificationIndependent ContractorCollective ActionArbitrationMediationSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)
References
28
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Hart's Manufacturing Co.

Hart's Manufacturing Co., the Debtor-In-Possession, moved to set aside the auction sale of its Corning Property, asserting the proposed price was grossly inadequate and not in the best interest of creditors. The high bidder, Eagle Investment Corp., objected, arguing the sale should be confirmed. The auction, held pursuant to a confirmed plan of liquidation, resulted in Eagle's bid of $250,000. The property is subject to liens totaling $957,000. The Court denied confirmation of the sale, citing an expert appraisal valuing the property at $1.55 million. The Court concluded that the proposed sale price was grossly inadequate and would not maximize creditor recovery, as it would only partially satisfy one creditor and leave no funds for others.

Chapter 11Liquidation PlanAuction SaleProperty SaleConfirmation of SaleCreditor RecoveryInadequate PriceJudicial SalesSecured ClaimsUnsecured Claims
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

New York Property Holding Corp. v. District 65, United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers (In re District 65, United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers)

District 65, a labor union and debtor in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, sought to dismiss an appeal by New York Property Holding Corporation (NYPHC). NYPHC appealed two orders from the Bankruptcy Court dated December 2, 1993, which found NYPHC in default of a property purchase contract and approved the sale of the property to IOWNA Corporation. The District Court denied District 65's motion to dismiss the appeal regarding the Default Order, stating that NYPHC's intent to appeal was clear despite a technical error in its notice of appeal. However, the court granted District 65's motion to dismiss the appeal concerning the Sale Order. This dismissal was due to the sale being consummated with a good faith purchaser and NYPHC's failure to obtain a stay, rendering that part of the appeal moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m).

Bankruptcy LawContract DisputeProperty SaleJudicial AppealMootness DoctrineDefault JudgmentChapter 11 BankruptcyFederal ProcedureGood Faith PurchaserSouthern District New York
References
15
Case No. 03-99-00265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2000

Ford Motor Company Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. And Daniel H. Foley, Jr./Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation v. Motor Vehicle Board, Texas Department of Transportation/Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. Daniel H. Foley, Jr. Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation And Ford Motor Company

This case involves an appeal from a district court judgment concerning an order from the Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation. The dispute originated from Ford's proposed termination of Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc.'s franchise due to alleged abuse of Ford's Competitive Price Assistance (CPA) program, where Metro misrepresented customer names to obtain higher discounts. The Board found good cause for termination but imposed a conditional termination remedy requiring the sale of Metro's dealership. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination for good cause, the refusal to transfer the dealership to Eileen Beard, and the denial of Ford's requested chargeback expenses. However, it reversed and remanded the district court's affirmation of the Board's conditional termination remedy, finding it unlawful.

Franchise TerminationDealer FraudCPA Program AbuseStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawMotor Vehicle BoardEquitable EstoppelGood Cause TerminationAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
33
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,964 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