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. 05-18-00541-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2019

AAA Cooper Transportation and XTRA Lease, LLC v. Olynthus M. Davis and Property & Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford

Olynthus M. Davis, a warehouseman, was injured while loading a trailer leased by AAA Cooper Transportation from XTRA Lease, LLC when an E-track rail detached and impaled his leg. Davis sued the appellants for providing an unsafe trailer and negligence in its inspection, repair, and maintenance. A jury found AAA Cooper 40% negligent, XTRA Lease 50% negligent, and Davis 10% negligent, awarding Davis damages. Appellants appealed, raising issues regarding the trial court's submission of a general negligence question instead of premises liability, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's findings on expert testimony and future medical expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the trailer was not a premises, and upheld the admissibility and sufficiency of the expert testimonies.

NegligencePremises LiabilityExpert TestimonySufficiency of EvidenceFuture Medical ExpensesCausationDamagesWorkplace InjuryForklift AccidentE-track System
References
25
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

EXLP Leasing, LLC v. Galveston Cent. Appraisal Dist.

The case concerns a dispute between EXLP Leasing, LLC (EXLP) and the Galveston County appraisal district regarding the constitutional validity of a statutory formula for taxing leased natural-gas compressors and the proper taxable situs for this equipment. Galveston County challenged the Texas Tax Code provisions, arguing they undervalued the compressors at a "minute fraction" of their market value, violating constitutional requirements for "equal and uniform" taxation. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the county failed to rebut the strong presumption of constitutionality, clarifying that the legislature is not constitutionally mandated to base property valuation solely on market value. Furthermore, the Court determined that Washington County, where EXLP maintains its inventory and business operations, is the correct taxable situs, establishing a comprehensive statutory scheme that supersedes general situs rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered a decision against Galveston County on both issues.

Property TaxTexas Tax CodeConstitutional LawValuation MethodTaxable SitusHeavy EquipmentNatural Gas CompressorsLegislative DiscretionEqual and Uniform TaxationMarket Value
References
60
Case No. No. 08-13-00348-CV (TC#12-09-802)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2015

EXLP Leasing LLC and EES Leasing LLC v. Loving County Appraisal District

This ad-valorem tax case concerns the taxation of natural gas pipeline compressor packages. Appellants, EXLP Leasing LLC and EES Leasing LLC, lease these compressor packages. The trial court initially ruled that the packages qualified as heavy equipment but found the taxable situs in Loving County and deemed the statutory formulas for market value and tax (Texas Tax Code Sections 23.1241 and 23.1242) unconstitutional as applied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed the constitutionality of these statutes and the determination of taxable situs. The appellate court reversed the trial court's finding on constitutionality, holding that the statutes are not unconstitutional as applied, and affirmed the trial court's ruling that the taxable situs was indeed in Loving County.

Ad Valorem TaxHeavy EquipmentTaxation LawMarket Value AssessmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawTaxable SitusTexas Tax CodeAppraisal DistrictProperty Tax
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Regent Leasing Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Roberto Cruz commenced an action against Regent Leasing Limited Partnership for personal injuries sustained during a slip and fall. Cruz, a superintendent, was an employee of Mid-State Management Corp., hired by Regent Leasing to manage the property. Defendant Regent Leasing moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits precluded the action, suggesting plaintiff should be deemed their employee. The court denied the motion, finding no employer-employee or co-employer relationship between Cruz and Regent Leasing. The decision clarified that merely hiring an employer to manage premises does not establish an employer-employee relationship within the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Slip and FallPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCo-EmployerManaging AgentLandowner LiabilityPremises Liability
References
17
Case No. 03-11-00327-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Cedar Contracting, Inc. and Lands & Leases, Inc. v. Ronald Hernandez and Connie Hernandez

This case involves a lease dispute between Cedar Contracting, Inc. and Lands & Leases, Inc. (Appellants) and Ronald Hernandez and Connie Hernandez (Appellees). Appellants appealed a trial court's summary judgment which declared that Cedar Contracting's assignment of its commercial lease rights and subsequent sublease violated the lease terms with Connie Hernandez. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the lease terminated upon Hernandez's notice of termination and that Cedar Contracting did not have an unrestricted right to assign or sublease the property without the landlord's consent. The court concluded that the phrase 'or its assigns' in the lease did not override the explicit restriction and found no error in the trial court's decision that Hernandez was justified in interfering with the sublease.

Lease DisputeCommercial LeaseAssignment of LeaseSubleaseLandlord ConsentSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationNotice of TerminationTortious InterferenceAttorney's Fees
References
32
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. 13-09-00213-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2010

Unique Staff Leasing, LLC and Unique Staff Leasing I, Ltd. v. Richard Onder

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in a breach of contract dispute between Unique Staff Leasing, LLC, and Unique Staff Leasing I, Ltd. (Appellants) and Richard Onder (Appellee). The core of the dispute was an 'Independent Contractor and Commission Agreement' and prior oral agreements regarding commission payments. Unique argued that the agreements were unenforceable due to the statute of frauds and that Onder committed a prior material breach. The court rejected Unique's arguments, finding that the written agreement was not subject to the statute of frauds as its terms allowed performance within one year and that the jury's implicit finding of no material breach by Onder was reasonable. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, as modified, which awarded Onder $52,025.11 in lost commissions and additional attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractStatute of FraudsElectronic AgreementIndependent ContractorCommission AgreementJury VerdictLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyContract InterpretationOral Agreement
References
73
Case No. 11-05-00264-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2008

the Prudential Insurance Company of America and Four Partners, LLC D/B/A Prizm Partners and D/B/A United Commercial Property Services v. Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd., Francesco Secchi, and Jane Secchi

Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. (ICP), Francesco Secchi, and Jane Secchi (Appellees) sued The Prudential Insurance Company of America and Prizm Partners (Appellants) for various claims including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of warranty of suitability, related to a restaurant property lease with a persistent sewer gas odor. Prudential counterclaimed for unpaid rent and breach of personal guaranty. The trial court initially ruled in favor of ICP and the Secchis, awarding damages and attorney's fees, and denying Prudential's counterclaims. However, the appellate court reversed this decision. The court found that disclaimer and merger clauses in the lease negated reliance for fraud claims, and that the lease placed repair responsibilities, including for latent defects, on ICP, thus overriding the implied warranty of suitability. Consequently, the court rendered judgment that ICP and the Secchis take nothing on their claims and remanded the case for the trial court to determine damages and attorney's fees owed to Prudential on its counterclaims.

Commercial Lease DisputeFraudulent InducementNegligent MisrepresentationImplied Warranty of SuitabilityConstructive EvictionCovenant of Quiet EnjoymentContract InterpretationDisclaimer of RelianceMerger ClauseRatification
References
28
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 2,923 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