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. 11-06-00103-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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Masterson v. Diocese of Northwest Texas

This Texas Supreme Court opinion addresses a church property dispute involving The Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd. A majority of the local congregation voted to withdraw from The Episcopal Church of the United States (TEC) and the Episcopal Diocese of Northwest Texas due to doctrinal differences, renaming itself the Anglican Church of the Good Shepherd. The Diocese and loyal faction (Episcopal Leaders) sued to gain control of the property. The Court held that Texas courts must apply 'neutral principles of law' to resolve church property disputes, rather than deferring to hierarchical church decisions on property ownership. The previous summary judgment in favor of the Episcopal Leaders, based on the deference methodology, was reversed. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the neutral principles approach, focusing on corporate bylaws, deeds, and state law regarding property and trusts.

Church Property DisputeNeutral Principles of LawDeference MethodologyFirst AmendmentFreedom of ReligionHierarchical ChurchTexas Supreme CourtCorporate GovernanceNon-Profit CorporationsTrust Law
References
59
Case No. 03-07-00240-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2008

Myrad Properties, Inc. v. Lasalle Bank National Ass'n

Myrad Properties, Inc. appealed a summary judgment concerning the non-judicial foreclosure of two apartment complexes, La Casa and Casa Grande, secured by a single note. The central dispute involved an error in the foreclosure notice that only described one property. The court determined that despite the inconsistency, references to the Deed of Trust provided sufficient notice for both properties. The lower court's judgment, affirming the conveyance of both properties and the validity of the correction deed, was largely upheld. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the claim for a surplus due to Myrad, citing unresolved fact issues regarding the calculation of Myrad's outstanding debt.

ForeclosureNon-judicial foreclosureDeed of TrustProperty description errorSummary judgmentReal propertyApartment complexesSubstitute trusteeNotice of saleCorrection deed
References
29
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. 03-05-00401-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2006

Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, for Paula Insurance Company, an Impaired Insurer v. National American Insurance Company and Clayton Mark Beck

This case involves an appeal from a workers' compensation decision concerning the employment status of two injured workers, Benjamin Brown and Clayton Mark Beck. The dispute centered on whether Jerry Gregory, Inc. or Hunter Trucking was their employer at the time of a trucking accident, which determines liability between National American Insurance Company (NAIC) and Texas Property and Casualty Guaranty Association (TPCIGA). The Workers' Compensation Commission initially found Gregory as the employer, making NAIC liable. However, the district court, after a jury trial under a 'modified de novo' standard, ruled that Hunter was the employer, thus making TPCIGA liable. TPCIGA appealed, arguing the dispute was a 'coverage' issue requiring substantial-evidence review, not modified de novo, and that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the dispute was one 'regarding compensability' and thus correctly governed by modified de novo review.

Workers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeModified De Novo ReviewSubstantial Evidence ReviewBorrowed Servant DoctrineJudicial ReviewTexas Court of AppealsTravis CountyTrucking Accident
References
60
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
Showing 1-10 of 6,991 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