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. 01-14-00515-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

Kosoco, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County

The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) filed this supplemental brief in response to Kosoco, Inc.'s reply brief. METRO argues that Kosoco's contention regarding material and substantial impairment of access during construction was waived, as it was not raised in their initial brief and lacked sufficient legal or evidentiary support. METRO asserts that any inconveniences during construction were normal and did not constitute a material and substantial impairment of access, nor is a decrease in business profitability relevant to a takings claim. The brief cites several Texas cases and rules of appellate procedure to support its arguments. METRO requests that the Court of Appeals affirm the trial court's order dismissing Kosoco's takings claim.

Appellate BriefWaiver of ArgumentTakings ClaimImpairment of AccessConstruction ImpactsEvidentiary SupportLegal PrecedentSummary JudgmentTrial Court OrderAffirmation
References
16
Case No. 01-17-00626-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Helwig Van Der Grinten, James W. Dalton and Anis Hussain v. City of Sugarland, Joe R. Zimmerman, Doug Brinkley and Allen Bogard

The appellants, Helwig Van Der Grinten, James W. Dalton, and Anis Hussain, filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a Supplemental Reply Appeal Brief in the First Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas. They seek permission to respond to a Supplemental Appeal Brief filed by the appellees, City of Sugar Land, Joe R. Zimmerman, Doug Brinkley, and Allen Bogard. The appellants argue that they are entitled to the last brief and that filing the supplemental brief would not interfere with the appeal's progress. They also state that the supplemental brief addresses a serious issue of subject matter jurisdiction concerning Article V, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution. Counsel for the appellees, George A. Staples, confirmed that the appellees do not oppose this motion.

Appellate ProcedureMotion PracticeSupplemental BriefSubject Matter JurisdictionTexas ConstitutionArticle V Section 19Red Light Camera LawsExhaustion of RemediesSeparation of PowersUltra Vires Claim
References
12
Case No. 14-0530
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2015

Bnsf Railway Company v. James E. Phillips

This Reply Brief on the Merits by BNSF Railway Company contests the appellate court's judgment affirming a jury's findings in a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) case involving James E. Phillips. BNSF argues that Phillips failed to provide legally sufficient and reliable expert testimony to establish causation for his spinal injuries, particularly concerning epidemiological studies. The brief also asserts that Phillips's FELA claim was untimely, as evidence indicated his awareness of the injury and its work-related cause before the statutory deadline. Additionally, BNSF challenges the finding of liability under the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) based on general complaints and argues for the erroneous exclusion of contributory negligence and certain rebuttal evidence. BNSF requests the Supreme Court of Texas to reverse the appellate court's judgment and render judgment in its favor or remand for a new trial.

FELACausationExpert TestimonyEpidemiological EvidenceTimelinessStatute of LimitationsLocomotive Inspection Act (LIA)Contributory NegligenceEvidentiary RulingsAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. 04-15-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2015

Brian McEnery v. City of San Antonio and Chief Charles N. Hood

Brian McEnery, an Appellant, files a reply brief challenging a lower court's decision regarding an arbitrator's award in a dispute with the City of San Antonio and Chief Charles N. Hood. The brief addresses several key issues, including whether McEnery waived certain arguments on appeal, the alleged absence of feedback in a firefighter assessment center examination, and the application of Texas Local Government Codes regarding promotion procedures. McEnery also disputes the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel, argues that his failure in a tactical exercise should not be upheld, and asserts that the arbitrator's decision was deficient. Additionally, the Appellant contends that his appeal is not moot and that his notice of appeal was timely filed.

ArbitrationAssessment CenterPromotional ExamCollective Bargaining AgreementLocal Government LawCivil ServiceRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelMootnessAppellate Jurisdiction
References
12
Case No. 14-15-00227-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2015

James P. Grantham v. J&B Sausage Company, Inc., D/B/A J Bar B Foods

James P. Grantham, the Appellant, filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File its Reply Brief in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas. The original brief was due on June 7, 2015, and Grantham requested an additional fifteen days, extending the deadline to June 22, 2015. The appellant cited a scheduled administrative benefit review conference before the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation, and an unavoidable conflict as reasons for the extension. The court document indicates the filing was accepted.

Workers' CompensationMotionExtension of TimeReply BriefAppellate ProcedureTexasHoustonLitigationCivil ProcedureDue Date
References
0
Case No. 03-14-00012-CV
Regular Panel Decision

State Office of Risk Management v. Katina A. Edwards

The Appellant, State Office of Risk Management, files this Reply Brief arguing that the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC), violated its due process rights by failing to require the Appellee, Katina A. Edwards, to provide evidence-based expert medical evidence for her occupational disease claim, thereby improperly placing the burden of proof. Appellant asserts that venue is mandatory in Travis County under government code provisions, as the dispute concerns procedural errors rather than compensability or benefits. It contends that a de novo review would not rectify the due process violation and that no declaratory judgment action was required. Appellant seeks to reverse the administrative order regarding compensability and disability, requesting a remand to the DWC for proper application of the burden of proof and evidence.

Due ProcessWorkers' CompensationAdministrative LawBurden of ProofEvidenceVenueJudicial ReviewRemandAppellate BriefOccupational Disease
References
2
Case No. PD-1358-15, PD-1359-15, PD-1360-15, PD-1361-15
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2016

Baumgart, Eric L.

The State of Texas filed a reply brief in the Court of Criminal Appeals, addressing whether the court of appeals erred in applying Penal Code § 2.02. The underlying case involves Eric L. Baumgart, convicted of violating the Private Security Act by acting as a security guard without a license. The State argues the court of appeals correctly held that exceptions not in the same statute as the offense, and where a prima facie case can be made without negating the exception, need not be pleaded or disproven by the State. It asserts this aligns with established common law and statutory interpretation, and that requiring the State to negate over 40 exceptions would lead to absurd results. The State respectfully requests the court of appeals' judgment be affirmed.

Criminal LawStatutory InterpretationExceptionsPrivate Security ActTexas Occupations CodeTexas Penal CodeLicensing RequirementsPeace OfficerPleading RequirementsBurden of Proof
References
27
Case No. 01-14-00776-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

Schlumberger Limited and Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. Charlotte Rutherford

Charlotte Rutherford, as cross-appellant, files a reply brief requesting the Court reverse the trial court's order denying her motion to dismiss Schlumberger's contract claim. She argues that Schlumberger's construction of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) is contrary to its plain language, particularly regarding protections for speech in public settings and the nexus to government participation. Rutherford asserts that her activities are protected by the TCPA and that Schlumberger failed to provide clear and specific evidence for its breach-of-contract allegations, including alleged file deletions and unreturned electronic storage devices. She contends that Schlumberger's claims lack proof of actual harm or monetary damages and that its request for specific performance is not warranted. Rutherford requests the Court affirm the judgment of dismissal and award of fees and sanctions, while reversing the denial of her anti-SLAPP motion regarding the contract claim.

Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA)Anti-SLAPP MotionBreach of ContractConfidentiality AgreementTrade SecretsElectronic EvidenceAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEvidentiary StandardDamages
References
26
Case No. ADJ10289629
Regular
Oct 19, 2017

Timothy Kirby vs. Contra Costa Water District

This case involves a clerical error where the defendant's reply brief was incomplete due to a missing second page. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) initially did not consider the incomplete brief. Upon receiving the complete brief and an explanation of the error, the WCAB, exercising its discretion to correct clerical errors for due process, accepted the defendant's reply. The WCAB affirmed its prior decision, but amended the original opinion to delete the footnote referencing the incomplete brief and include the defendant's reply.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDAMENDED OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONPetition For Leave to File a Replyclerical errordue process rightscorrect clerical errorsconsider evidenceconsider pleadingsWCAB Rule 10848supplemental response
References
2
Case No. 03-14-00738-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2015

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC// Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.

The Appellees and Cross-Appellants, RLJII-C Austin Air, LP; RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP; and RJL Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC, filed an unopposed motion to amend their Appellees' Brief. The amendment seeks to correct a sentence fragment on page 5 of their brief by adding ten omitted words. The omission occurred due to an error during the final preparation of the brief, where a phrase was accidentally deleted during a copy-and-paste operation and was not detected until after the brief was filed. Counsel for the Appellant and Cross-Appellee is not opposed to the requested amendment. The motion requests that the court grant leave to amend and accept the Amended Appellees' Brief for filing.

Motion to Amend BriefSentence Fragment CorrectionAppellate ProcedureUnopposed MotionBrief AmendmentCivil ProcedureContract LawAttorney's FeesStanding to SueAssignment of Contract
References
168
Showing 1-10 of 408 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