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. 21 MC 101, 04 Civ. 7272(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2007

In Re September 11 Property Damage

This opinion addresses the legal sufficiency of third-party actions filed by Seven World Trade Company, L.P. and Silverstein Properties, Inc. (Silverstein), owners and developers of 7 World Trade Center, seeking indemnification and contribution. Silverstein, who was both a plaintiff and defendant in various lawsuits following the September 11, 2001, destruction of 7WTC, brought claims against OEM Design and Construction Defendants, Citigroup Design and Construction Defendants, and engineers Irwin Cantor and Syska. The court granted motions to dismiss from all third-party defendants. It found OEM defendants immune under the New York State Defense Emergency Act, Citigroup defendants protected by Silverstein's prior assumption of risk, and Irwin Cantor and Syska dismissed for failure to meet heightened pleading standards for licensed design professionals.

September 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterProperty DamageBusiness LossThird-Party LitigationIndemnificationContributionMotions to DismissSDEA ImmunityAssumption of Risk
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. v. Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas), L.P.

This case addresses the proper method for compensating a landowner for the destruction of trees on their property. Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. (Wheeler) sued Enbridge Pipelines, L.P. (Enbridge) for breach of contract and trespass after Enbridge destroyed several hundred feet of trees while constructing a pipeline, violating an agreement to use an underground boring method. The Texas Supreme Court clarifies the application of the temporary-versus-permanent injury distinction to real property damages, holding it applies to both tort and contract claims and is a question of law for the court. The Court confirms two exceptions to general damage rules: the economic feasibility exception, deeming the injury permanent due to restoration costs significantly exceeding market value diminution, and the intrinsic value of trees exception, allowing recovery for ornamental and utilitarian value even with nominal market value loss. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to address remaining issues consistent with this opinion.

Real Property DamagesBreach of ContractTrespassTree DestructionTemporary vs. Permanent InjuryDamages CalculationEconomic Feasibility ExceptionIntrinsic Value of TreesAppellate ReviewJury Instructions
References
29
Case No. ADJ10765465
Regular
Mar 25, 2018

VIRAJ PATEL vs. TASA CORPORATION, DONALD AND MARIE FERGUSON, dba PROPERTY DAMAGE APPRAISERS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, uninsured, PROPERTY DAMAGE APPRAISERS, INC., insured by THE HARTFORD, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The applicant, Viraj Patel, suffered a severe industrial injury while working as a vehicle appraiser. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, overturning the trial judge's finding that Patel was an independent contractor. The WCAB found Patel was an employee of TASA Corporation and Property Damage Appraisers, Inc., based on factors like TASA's control over his work and the integral nature of his role. The case is remanded for further proceedings on compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent contractorEmployee statusRight to controlBorello factorsFranchise agreementIndustrial injuryPTSDLoss of sightTASA Corporation
References
19
Case No. 02-22-00336-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2024

Boxer Property Management Corporation v. Teresa R. Dehnel

Teresa R. Dehnel sued Boxer Property Management Corporation for age and sex discrimination and retaliation after her termination. A jury found retaliation and awarded back pay, noneconomic, and exemplary damages. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's findings on retaliation and noneconomic damages. However, it reversed the exemplary damages due to a non-unanimous verdict and remanded the attorney's fees for recalculation.

RetaliationEmployment LawDiscriminationWrongful TerminationJury VerdictBack PayExemplary DamagesAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewCausation
References
9
Case No. 02-11-00060-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2012

Amos McAlister A/K/A A.L. McAlister, Individually and D/B/A Albam Investments and Barbara McAlister, Individually and D/B/A Albam Investments v. Hatbreeze Properties, L.L.C.

Amos and Barbara McAlister, doing business as Albam Investments, appealed a trial court judgment that awarded Hatbreeze Properties, L.L.C. damages for their breach of a commercial lease agreement. The McAlisters argued that Hatbreeze breached the lease by not maintaining insurance, making the damages provision an unenforceable penalty, and disputed calculations for utilities and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment regarding the breach of contract, fraud, and fraudulent inducement claims. However, the court found Hatbreeze's initial demand for damages excessive and noted the trial court erred by not crediting the McAlisters' security deposit. Consequently, the judgment was modified to remove attorney's fees and reduce the awarded damages by the security deposit, then affirmed as modified.

Breach of Commercial LeaseSummary JudgmentFraud ClaimsFraudulent InducementContract DamagesAttorney's FeesSecurity DepositAppellate ReviewTexas Property LawMitigation of Damages
References
30
Case No. E2020-00375-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2021

Toryiana Louisa Soto v. Presidential Properties, LLC

This case involves claims brought under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the Tennessee Real Estate Broker License Act, along with other related claims concerning real estate transactions. The plaintiffs, Toryina and Luis Soto, and John and Tina Colbaugh, sued Presidential Properties, LLC and Kenneth Gross for fraud, breach of contract, and violations of the aforementioned acts. Kenneth Gross, acting as an unlicensed real estate broker, improperly advertised properties he did not own and misled the Sotos. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding treble damages and attorney's fees, and restored the Bays View property title to the Sotos. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's conclusions regarding fraud and the violation of the Real Estate Broker License Act but vacated the award of attorney's fees due to insufficient explanation, remanding for further findings.

Real Estate FraudConsumer Protection ActBroker License ActBreach of ContractTreble DamagesAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewPro Se LitigantExpert Witness ExclusionStatutory Interpretation
References
30
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

Truco Properties, Inc. v. Charlton

Faye Charlton, a sixty-eight-year-old housekeeper for Truco Properties, Inc., sustained a lower back injury while lifting a mop bucket. Truco, which was not a subscriber to the Workers’ Compensation Act, was subsequently sued for negligence. The jury found Truco negligent for failing to provide proper instruction and training to Charlton, and this failure was deemed a proximate cause of her injury, leading to an award of $18,000 in damages (later adjusted to $17,408.50). Truco appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for negligence, proximate cause, and damages, and alleging judicial error in excluding testimony about an alternative cause of injury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on all points and upholding the exclusion of the impeachment testimony.

Negligence ActionEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExemptionJury VerdictProximate CauseSufficiency of EvidenceLost EarningsMedical ExpensesImpeachment TestimonyHearsay Evidence
References
9
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
Showing 1-10 of 6,011 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