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. 11-05-00326-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2006

Alice Marie Belew D/B/A Belew Real Estate v. James A. Rector

This case involves an appeal concerning an oral employment contract dispute over real estate commissions. Appellant Alice Marie Belew, a real estate broker operating Belew Real Estate, challenged a trial court judgment in favor of Appellee James A. Rector. Rector claimed entitlement to commissions from lot sales in Desert Willow Estates based on an oral agreement. The trial court found Rector was due additional commissions and attorney's fees. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed Belew's arguments regarding lack of consideration, sufficiency of evidence for commission receipt, and presentment of attorney's fees claim, ultimately affirming the lower court's decision.

Real Estate LawOral ContractEmployment DisputeCommissionsAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewContractual ConsiderationLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyTexas Law
References
29
Case No. 04-24-00606-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2025

Michael Shalit D/B/A Kimberly Investment Company, Lynzara-Austin Real Estate Management, LLC, as General Partner of Kendall County Development Company, L.P., and as General Partner of Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Robyn Real Estate Investments, L.P., Robyn Utility Investments, L.P., and Robyn Utility Investments Management, LLC v. Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Kendall County Development Company, L.P., Kendall County Utility Company, Inc., Tapatio Springs Utility Holdings, L.P., and Tapatio Springs Hospitality Holdings, L.P.

This memorandum opinion addresses an appeal from a summary judgment granted by the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas. Appellants, collectively known as the Shalit Entities, appealed a summary judgment in favor of Appellees, the Tapatio Entities, which barred the Shalit Entities' counter-claims due to the four-year statute of limitations. The Shalit Entities' claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel, arose from a soured business partnership. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the Shalit Entities failed to sufficiently plead acknowledgment of debt to defeat the limitations defense. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that special exceptions were a prerequisite to summary judgment on limitations grounds and affirmed the severance of claims.

Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractStatutory FraudDeclaratory ReliefBusiness Partnership DisputeReal Estate VentureAppellate ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Case No. 15-24-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2025

Texas Real Estate Commission v. Marla Nunally Kaufman Homes, LLC

The Texas Real Estate Commission (TREC) appealed a trial court's order to pay Marla Nunally Kaufman Homes, LLC (Kaufman Homes) from the Texas Real Estate Recovery Trust Account. Kaufman Homes had obtained judgments against license holders Round Up Realty and Stephani Hardy for damages from mismanaged renovations. TREC argued that managing renovations is not "real estate brokerage" and does not require a real estate license, thus the damages are not eligible for reimbursement from the Fund. The appellate court agreed, finding that Kaufman Homes' damages arose solely from mismanaged renovations, which is expressly excluded from the definition of "real estate brokerage" under the Texas Occupations Code. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's order and denied Kaufman Homes' application for reimbursement.

Real estate brokerageReal Estate Recovery Trust AccountTexas Occupations Codemismanaged renovationslicense holder liabilitystatutory interpretationappellate reviewreimbursement denialproperty managementfraud
References
16
Case No. 2-06-472-CV, 2-07-048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2009

in Re Gerald W. Haddock

Gerald W. Haddock filed a consolidated interlocutory appeal and mandamus proceeding challenging a trial court's order staying arbitration. Haddock initiated arbitration against William F. Quinn, Paul E. Rowsey, III, John Goff, Terry N. Worrell, Crescent Real Estate Equities Company (CEI), Crescent Real Estate Equities Limited Partnership (CREELP), and Crescent Real Estate Equities, Limited (CREE) after previously litigating related claims in court. The core issue was whether Haddock waived his right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process in a prior lawsuit concerning his options and alleged mismanagement by the Crescent Entities. The court determined it had jurisdiction to decide the waiver issue, rejecting Haddock's argument that the incorporation of AAA rules delegated this to an arbitrator. The court found that Haddock's extensive litigation, including seeking injunctive relief and summary judgment in the prior suit, constituted a substantial invocation of the judicial process. This prejudiced the defendants by forcing them to incur significant expenses. Consequently, the court held that Haddock waived his right to arbitrate these claims. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction.

ArbitrationWaiverJudicial ProcessFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationPrejudiceLitigation ConductOption ClaimsSeverance AgreementLimited Partnership Agreement
References
62
Case No. 03-04-00485-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2008

MHI Partnership, Ltd. v. DH Real Estate Investment Company D/B/A DH Investment Company

MHI Partnership, Ltd. appealed a trial court judgment concerning its breach-of-contract action against DH Real Estate Investment Company. The dispute arose from a real estate development contract where MHI terminated the agreement, alleging a material breach by DH for failing to provide required backup cost information three weeks before closing, despite a "time is of the essence" clause. The trial court denied MHI's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury found no material breach by DH, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The appellate court found that MHI did not conclusively establish a material breach as a matter of law, noting that boilerplate "time is of the essence" clauses do not automatically make every deadline material, and considering factors such as DH's offers to cure and testimony from MHI's own executives regarding the deadlines' importance. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's finding that DH's conduct did not constitute a material breach justifying contract termination.

Contract LawReal EstateBreach of ContractTime is of the EssenceMaterial BreachDirected VerdictJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewContract TerminationProperty Development
References
26
Case No. 05-14-01265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2015

Azeb Ruder v. William Jordan D/B/A William Davis Realty, William Davis Real Estate Services, LLC

Azeb Ruder appealed the denial of her motion to dismiss defamation claims filed by William Jordan d/b/a William Davis Realty, William Davis Real Estate Services, LLC d/b/a William Davis Realty, and Kathy Jabri. Ruder's motion was filed under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA) after she posted a negative review of Kathy Jabri's real estate services on Zillow. Appellees claimed Ruder's statements were defamatory, specifically regarding the property being 'Temp Off Market' for over 100 days against her wish, other realtors' opinions, and questioning Jabri's competence. The appellate court found Ruder met her burden under TCPA. However, appellees failed to establish a prima facie case for defamation because the alleged false statements were either substantially true (regarding the duration of the 'Temp Off Market' status) or non-actionable statements of opinion (regarding competence or mental state). The court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the defamation claims, remanding for determination of costs and attorney's fees.

DefamationTexas Citizens' Participation ActTCPAFree SpeechReal Estate LawMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedurePrima Facie CaseSubstantial Truth DoctrineStatement of Opinion
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stetka v. Hunt Real Estate Corp.

Plaintiff Mary Lou Stetka initially filed a pro se action, later amended with counsel, alleging sex discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York State Human Rights Law against Hunt Real Estate. Defendant Hunt Real Estate moved for summary judgment, contending that Stetka was an independent contractor, not an employee, and thus not covered by these employment discrimination statutes. The court applied the common law agency test, considering factors such as control over work, method of payment, and tax treatment. The court found that Stetka, a licensed real estate agent, worked autonomously, set her own hours, developed her own business, and received commissions without employee benefits or tax deductions, concluding she was an independent contractor. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for Hunt Real Estate on the federal claim and dismissed the pendent state claim due to lack of original jurisdiction.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawIndependent Contractor StatusSummary JudgmentCommon Law Agency TestReal Estate IndustrySexual Harassment ClaimPendent Jurisdiction
References
28
Case No. 08-CV-3175 (JG)(JO)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2009

Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Bercosa Corp.

Century 21 Real Estate LLC sued Bercosa Corp. and its owner Pedro Bernard for breach of contract and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The defendants failed to respond to the complaint, leading to a motion for default judgment. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation, which District Judge John Gleeson adopted, finding the defendants liable. The court awarded Century 21 a total of $319,832.32 in monetary damages, including contract claims, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Additionally, the defendants were permanently enjoined from using the Century 21 Marks and ordered to cooperate in an audit of Bercosa’s books and records.

Default JudgmentTrademark InfringementLanham ActBreach of ContractFranchise AgreementMonetary DamagesInjunctive ReliefAttorneys' FeesAudit OrderWillful Violation
References
66
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00194 [223 AD3d 747]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2024

Ochoa v. JEM Real Estate Co., LLC

Carlos Ochoa, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries after falling from an A-frame ladder while working at a building owned by JEM Real Estate Co., LLC, and leased by Bobwhite Counter, LLC. He commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted Ochoa's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of a defective ladder in violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court also upheld the denial of summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim due to unresolved factual issues regarding Industrial Code violations.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLadder AccidentWorkplace SafetyConstruction AccidentStatutory ViolationProximate CauseNondelegable Duty
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt

The Vogts sued Marin Real Estate Partners and Trada Partners for easement encroachment, diversion of surface water, and malicious prosecution. A default judgment was entered against Trada Partners. A jury found in favor of the Vogts against Marin, awarding $1,691,372 in damages for loss of use of easement, surface water diversion, and malicious prosecution, along with injunctive relief. Marin appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, the award of injunctive relief, the admission of expert testimony, and the viability of judgment following a default. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting all nine of Marin's issues, including arguments on double recovery and the effect of the default judgment.

Easement DisputeWater DiversionMalicious ProsecutionProperty DamageInjunctive ReliefExpert WitnessSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ProcedureCivil LitigationReal Estate Law
References
84
Showing 1-10 of 1,675 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