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. 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. 11-06-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2008

Stephanie Williams A/K/A Stephanie Scholler and Tim Williams v. William Colthurst, Yuko Colthurst, WGW Properties, Inc. D/B/A Century 21 Advantage, Tom DeWitt, Century 21 Real Estate Corporation, and Felix Kauffman

This appeal stems from a landlord-tenant dispute. The landlords (Colthurst) initially sued the tenants (Williams) for unpaid rent and property damage. The tenants counterclaimed, alleging wrongful withholding of their security deposit and a premises liability claim after Mrs. Williams was sexually assaulted in the leased home. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the landlords on the unpaid rent claim and a directed verdict on the premises liability claim, with the jury ruling in favor of the landlords on the remaining issues. On appeal, the tenants challenged multiple aspects of the trial court's judgment, including the summary judgment, the directed verdict, and the jury's findings regarding the security deposit and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the handling of the various claims and upholding sanctions against the tenants' counsel for an intrinsic fraud allegation.

Landlord-Tenant DisputeUnpaid RentProperty DamageSecurity DepositPremises LiabilitySexual AssaultDirected VerdictSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
37
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. 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

Perla v. Real Property Holdings, LLC

Plaintiffs Robert and Deborah L. Perla initiated a foreclosure action, alleging defendant Real Property Holdings, LLC (RPH) defaulted on a $420,000 mortgage and note. They sought summary judgment and the appointment of a referee. Defendant Chrissy Holness, a former owner, opposed the motion, claiming RPH violated a prior contract regarding property sale and payment, asserting the plaintiffs' mortgage was suspicious. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding it improper against defaulting defendants without a default judgment and against Holness due to lack of specific allegations in the complaint and her standing. Consequently, the request for a referee to compute the amount due was also denied.

Summary JudgmentForeclosure ActionMortgage DefaultReal PropertyPromissory NoteGuaranty of PaymentLis PendensJoinder of IssueDefault JudgmentCivil Procedure
References
8
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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1966

Crusade for Christ, Inc. v. Town of New Lebanon

The appellant, an unnamed religious corporation, sought tax exemption for its real property in the Town of New Lebanon under Real Property Tax Law section 420. The property, known as 'Lebanon Boys’ Village,' was used for various religious activities, an unlicensed school, and an orphanage. The Referee dismissed the complaint, finding that the corporation's certificate did not authorize operating a school and failed to obtain necessary consents from the Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Social Welfare. The court affirmed the Referee's decision, ruling that the property was not primarily used for statutorily authorized activities. The court concluded that granting the exemption would subsidize improper corporate functions and lacked the public benefit contemplated by the statute.

Real Property Tax Law § 420Tax ExemptionReligious CorporationMembership Corporations LawDeclaratory JudgmentProperty UseUnlicensed SchoolOrphanage ActivitiesCorporate AuthorizationConsent Requirements
References
2
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,633 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