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. 04-08-00105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2008

Killam Ranch Properties, Ltd. v. Webb County, Texas

Killam Ranch Properties, Ltd. appealed a trial court order awarding attorney's fees to Webb County, Texas. The dispute arose after Killam Ranch filed a nonsuit in its declaratory judgment action against the County, leading the County to seek attorney's fees under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Killam Ranch contested the award, arguing the County had abandoned its claim through discovery failures and lacked proper pleading for fees. The appellate court addressed these issues, affirming the trial court's decision. It ruled that the County's claim for attorney's fees survived the nonsuit, its discovery disclosures were timely due to a trial reset, and its general request for fees was sufficient.

Declaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesNonsuitDiscovery DisputesTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionAffirmative ReliefStatutory InterpretationCivil Practice and Remedies Code
References
16
Case No. 04-10-00802-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2012

Callaghan Ranch, Ltd (Appellant/Cross Appellee) v. David Killam (Appellee/Cross Appellant)

Callaghan Ranch, Ltd. appealed the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, challenging a jury's finding that a disputed portion of San Ygnacio Road was not impliedly dedicated to the public. The Ranch had sought a declaratory judgment to affirm the road's public status. Concurrently, the Killams, as appellees and cross-appellants, contested the trial court's refusal to award attorney's fees. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, concluding that Callaghan Ranch failed to conclusively prove implied dedication due to disputed evidence. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of attorney's fees, citing that both parties had legitimate interests to pursue.

Implied DedicationDeclaratory JudgmentJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictPublic RoadPrivate RoadAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceProperty RightsTexas Law
References
32
Case No. 03-14-00821-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2014

Ha Duong Nhu and D&H Restaurant Equipment v. Hunan Ranch Corporation

This case is a restricted appeal filed by Duong Nhu Ha and D&H Restaurant Equipment against Hunan Ranch Corporation, challenging a no-answer default judgment. The default judgment, issued by the 201st District Court of Travis County, awarded Hunan Ranch Corporation $38,663.81 in unliquidated damages for breach of contract related to the installation of a commercial wok range, plus $6,693.75 in attorney's fees. Appellants argue that there is error on the face of the record due to the absence of material exhibits, such as the alleged purchase order and sales reports, and the lack of a court reporter's record from the default judgment hearing. They further contend that Hunan Ranch Corporation used an incorrect measure for damages (lost sales instead of lost profits), failed to prove profitability, and did not establish a causal nexus between the alleged breach and the claimed damages. Consequently, Appellants seek to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial.

Contract DisputeDefault JudgmentRestricted AppealUnliquidated DamagesLost ProfitsLost SalesAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewEvidentiary HearingCourt Reporter Record
References
35
Case No. 2021-03-0523
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2022

Nuchols, William Craig v. Jayell Ranch

The claimant, William Craig Nuchols, suffered a left arm injury while working as a horseback riding guide for Jayell Ranch. The employer contested the claim, asserting Nuchols was an independent contractor and not entitled to workers' compensation benefits. However, the trial court determined Nuchols was an employee at the time of the accident and ordered Jayell Ranch to initiate medical benefits. Furthermore, due to the employer's lack of workers' compensation insurance, the claimant was deemed eligible for benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund. The employer appealed this decision, but the Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order and remanded the case, noting the employer's failure to file a transcript or a brief on appeal.

Employee vs. Independent ContractorWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical BenefitsUninsured Employers FundFrivolous AppealBurden of ProofTranscript RequirementAppellate ProcedureHorseback Riding IndustryLeft Arm Injury
References
8
Case No. 11-18-00111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2020

Garrett Martin v. Fasken Oil and Ranch Ltd.

Garrett Martin appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Fasken Oil and Ranch Ltd. Martin sought damages for retaliatory discharge under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, alleging he was terminated for filing a workers' compensation claim. Martin sustained a back injury at work and filed a claim two days before his termination. Fasken Oil and Ranch Ltd. argued that Martin was terminated due to unsafe work practices, inability to follow instructions, and untruthfulness regarding the incident. The court reviewed the summary judgment, finding Martin failed to produce sufficient circumstantial evidence for a causal link between his termination and the workers’ compensation claim, and did not rebut Fasken’s non-retaliatory explanation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Summary JudgmentRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ActCausationCircumstantial EvidenceNo-Evidence MotionEmployment LawTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewAffirmation
References
14
Case No. 18-0656
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2019

Creative Oil & Gas Operating, Llc v. Lona Hills Ranch, Llc

This case concerns the application of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) to counterclaims in an oil and gas lease dispute. Petitioners, Creative Oil & Gas, LLC and Creative Oil & Gas Operating, LLC, filed counterclaims against Respondent, Lona Hills Ranch, LLC, alleging false communications to third parties about lease termination and breach of contract by initiating litigation without proper notice. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed in part and reversed in part the appellate court's judgment. The Court ruled that private business communications about a single well's production were not matters of public concern under the TCPA's free speech provision. However, the Operator's counterclaim regarding the Ranch's legal filings fell under the TCPA's right to petition but was dismissed as the Operator was not a party to the lease.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAAnti-SLAPPOil and GasLease DisputeCounterclaimsFree SpeechRight to PetitionPublic ConcernPrivate Communications
References
14
Case No. 04-25-00361-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2026

John H. White, Jr., Individually and as Trustee of the Christopher C. White Trust, Matthew M. White Trust, and 1976B John H. White Trust F/B/O David Ryall White v. TCW Helotes Ranch LTD.

This memorandum opinion from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirms a temporary injunction granted against John H. White, Jr. The dispute involves an easement across White's property, which provides access to Tuleta White's parcel, owned by TCW Helotes Ranch Ltd. White blocked the easement, prompting TCW Helotes Ranch to seek injunctive relief, citing the critical need for access due to Tuleta's medical condition and the care requirements for her animals. The appellate court concluded that an alternative easement over a third party's land did not constitute a bona fide alternative route, thereby upholding the trial court's finding of probable, imminent, and irreparable injury. Consequently, the temporary injunction, preventing White from obstructing the easement, was affirmed.

Easement disputeTemporary injunctionReal propertyLand accessIrreparable injuryAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewProperty rightsFamily disputeTexas law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Collins v. Ryon's Saddle & Ranch Supplies, Inc.

Carol Collins appealed a temporary injunction granted in favor of Ryon’s Saddle & Ranch Supplies, Inc. Collins, a former designer for Ryon, left to work for a competitor, Dickson-Jenkins, taking Xeroxed customer order copies with confidential information. Ryon sued Collins and Dickson-Jenkins for unfair trade practices, conspiracy, violation of fiduciary duties, and wrongful appropriation. The trial court granted a temporary injunction against Collins, prohibiting her from soliciting or contacting Ryon's customers from her employment period, but denied it against Dickson-Jenkins. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion and upholding that an employee cannot use confidential information or trade secrets acquired from a former employer, and customer lists qualify as trade secrets.

Temporary InjunctionUnfair Trade PracticesTrade SecretsCustomer ListsConfidential InformationFiduciary DutyEmployee MisconductAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionAffirmed Judgment
References
7
Case No. 04-14-00905-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2015

Escondido Resources II, LLC v. Justapor Ranch, L.C.

This appeal brief concerns an oil-and-gas lease dispute between Escondido Resources II, LLC (Appellant) and Justapor Ranch Company, L.C. (Appellee). Escondido challenges a trial court's summary judgment that declared its mineral lease terminated as of March 2, 2012, and ruled it a bad-faith trespasser. The trial court awarded Justapor over $12 million in trespass damages, denying Escondido any reimbursement for its $33 million in improvements. Escondido argues that the lease termination provision was ambiguous and inequitable, and that it was not a bad-faith trespasser. The brief requests reversal of the trial court's judgment and a ruling that the lease did not terminate.

Oil and gas leaseRoyalty disputeLease terminationSummary judgment appealBad-faith trespassEquitable reliefContract interpretationTexas lawMineral rightsLeasehold interests
References
14
Case No. 03-23-00459-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance v. the Texas Department of Agriculture and Sid Miller, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) appealed the dismissal of its challenge against the Texas Department of Agriculture's Produce Safety Rules. FARFA argued that these rules imposed additional burdens on small-scale farms, contravening federal regulations and exceeding the Department's statutory authority. The challenged rules concerned definitions of 'egregious condition', 'verification of status' procedures for farm entry, and general 'right of entry' provisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's final judgment, holding that FARFA's challenges were ripe but found the rules procedurally and substantively valid, not authorizing unreasonable searches, and not unconstitutionally vague. The decision upheld the Department's broad delegated powers to administer and enforce produce safety regulations.

Produce Safety RulesAdministrative LawRulemaking AuthorityConstitutional ChallengeFourth AmendmentVagueness DoctrineFood Safety Modernization ActTexas Department of AgricultureFarm RegulationsDeclaratory Judgment
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 100 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