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. 09-24-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2026

Universal Protection Service, LP D/B/A Allied Universal Security and Universal Protection Service GP, Inc. v. the Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC

Universal Protection Services, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security (Allied) and The Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC (TWM) were parties to a Security Agreement. A patron, Penny Prater, sued both Allied and TWM, along with other entities, for negligence after a robbery in the mall parking lot, alleging failures in security services and training. Allied and TWM filed competing motions for summary judgment regarding Allied's contractual duty to defend TWM, which Allied had refused. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWM, finding that Allied had a duty to defend TWM based on the Agreement's terms and Illinois law. Allied appealed this decision, arguing the contract's indemnification provision did not require it to defend TWM for TWM's own alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the contractual provision clearly required Allied to defend TWM when the alleged acts of negligence or failures resulted from its provision of security services.

Contract InterpretationDuty to DefendIndemnification AgreementSecurity ServicesNegligence ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois Contract LawTexas Civil ProcedureBreach of Contract
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. 09-20-00185-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2020

in Re FW Services, Inc. D/B/A Pacesetter Personnel Services

FW Services, Inc., operating as Pacesetter Personnel Services, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to vacate an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction and abate a personal injury suit. The suit was filed by Pacesetter's employee, Anthony Snowden, who alleged negligence against Pacesetter and a co-employee, Joshua Dancurtis Franklin. Pacesetter argued that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy and required abatement until the workers' compensation proceedings before the DWC concluded. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court abused its discretion by not abating the negligence suit while the DWC had active jurisdiction over the workers' compensation claim. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted.

MandamusAbatementWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyPlea to JurisdictionPersonal InjuryScope of EmploymentTrial Court DiscretionAppellate ReviewOriginal Proceeding
References
2
Case No. 05-0202
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2007

Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc. v. Superior Snubbing Services, Inc.

Daryll Faulk, an employee of Superior Snubbing Services, Inc., was injured and subsequently sued Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc., among others. Energy later settled with Faulk and sought indemnity from Superior, based on an indemnity provision in Superior's contract with Mitchell Energy Corporation. The dissenting opinion addresses whether Texas Labor Code section 417.004 allows Energy to claim indemnity from Superior when no direct written indemnity agreement existed between them. Justice Johnson, in dissent, argues for a literal interpretation of the statute, stating that it requires a direct contractual agreement between the employer and the third party for indemnity liability. The dissent asserts that this interpretation aligns with legislative intent, particularly the 1989 workers' compensation reforms aimed at reducing employer costs and preserving employer immunity from common-law claims. It further contends that the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (TOAIA) does not negate this workers' compensation provision. The dissenting opinion concludes by stating it would affirm the court of appeals' judgment, thereby denying Energy's indemnity claim against Superior.

Workers' CompensationIndemnity AgreementsStatutory InterpretationThird-Party LiabilityTexas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity ActEmployer ImmunityLegislative IntentContract LawDissenting OpinionSupreme Court of Texas
References
17
Case No. 01-09-00779-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2011

Prime Trees and Landscaping Services D/B/A/ Mulch Matters v. Americon Services Company, Inc.

This breach-of-contract case involved Prime Tree and Landscaping Services (Mulch Matters) appealing a trial court's partial summary judgment and final judgment in favor of Americon Services Company. The dispute centered on a contract for 'select fill' dirt with specific plasticity index (PI) requirements for a construction project. Prime Tree contended the PI specifications were not part of the agreement and raised defenses of fraudulent inducement and lack of authority regarding the contract's terms. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Mulch Matters' estimate had unambiguously incorporated Americon's Purchase Order, thus including the PI specifications in the contract. Additionally, the court upheld the jury's award of $30,500 in damages to Americon, finding sufficient evidence that the costs incurred to remedy the non-conforming dirt were reasonable and necessary.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationParol Evidence RuleFraudulent InducementDamages AwardTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
26
Case No. 2022-05-1262, 2022-05-0597
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2024

Burris, Stuart v. WWL Vehicle Services Americas, Inc., and Burris v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

The employee, Stuart Burris, filed two separate workers' compensation petitions against two different employers, WWL Vehicle Services Americas, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC, for distinct low back and hip injuries sustained in 2020 and 2022, respectively. The trial court consolidated the cases and, in an interlocutory hearing, awarded benefits against Amazon, partly relying on evidence introduced by WWL. Amazon appealed, arguing that evidence introduced by one employer in a consolidated case should not be used against another, and that the employee was effectively relieved of his burden of proof. The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated the trial court's order. It held that consolidation does not merge separate actions or alter evidentiary requirements, meaning evidence must be presented by a party to the specific claim against which it is to be used. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Workers' Compensation AppealsCase ConsolidationEvidentiary BurdenMedical CausationAuthorized Treating PhysicianPre-existing ConditionInterlocutory HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsJudicial EconomyRule 42.01
References
10
Case No. 11-10-00212-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2012

Nathan Park, Individually and D/B/A Park Mowing Service v. Claude Payne D/B/A Haskell Tractor Service

Claude Payne d/b/a Haskell Tractor Service filed a breach of contract suit against Nathan Park d/b/a Park Mowing Service. After a bench trial, the court found in favor of Payne, awarding damages and attorney's fees. Park appealed, contending Haskell Tractor violated the contract by failing to provide required documentation and that the evidence was insufficient for the damages award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Park waived the defense of material breach by not requesting additional findings and that the evidence sufficiently supported the award of lost profits and attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractSubcontract AgreementLost ProfitsAttorney's FeesMaterial BreachWaiver of DefenseAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceTexas Court of AppealsContract Law
References
10
Case No. 03-16-00358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2016

Patricia Mosley// Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, Patricia Mosley

Patricia Mosley is appealing a trial court's decision that affirmed the Texas Health and Human Services Commission's (HHSC) order to place her on the Employee Misconduct Registry (EMR). This placement stems from an incident where AW, a disabled individual under Mosley's one-to-one supervision, swallowed batteries. Mosley argues that her actions did not constitute neglect, asserting that maintaining constant arm's-length supervision for nearly seven hours alone was impossible, AW's secretive self-harming behavior was unforeseeable given the absence of warning signs, and she lacked adequate training for AW's specific needs. The core legal arguments revolve around the definition of 'neglect' as a negligent act requiring foreseeability and the proper application of a negligence standard versus a strict liability standard.

Employee Misconduct RegistryNegligenceForeseeabilityDirect Care ServicesDisabled IndividualsHealth and Human ServicesAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawSubstantial Evidence RuleSupervision Requirements
References
36
Case No. 03-10-00709-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Green Tree Servicing, LLC, as Authorized Servicing Agent for Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation v. Travis County

Green Tree Servicing, LLC appealed a post-answer default judgment concerning ad valorem taxes on mobile homes. The original suit was filed by Travis County and other entities against Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation, later substituted with Green Tree. Green Tree failed to appear at trial, resulting in a default judgment. Green Tree filed a motion for new trial, asserting its failure to appear was due to an accident or mistake (attorney transition) and that it had a meritorious defense, arguing that as a repossessing lienholder and not an owner, it was not liable for the taxes under Texas Tax Code Ann. § 32.07. The appellate court applied the Craddock test and found that Green Tree satisfied all three elements. The court adopted the interpretation that a repossessing lienholder is not considered an 'owner' under the tax code. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Post-answer default judgmentAd valorem taxesMobile homesLienholder liabilityProperty ownershipMeritorious defenseCraddock testNew trialStatutory interpretationTexas Tax Code
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moss v. Department of Civil Service

The petitioner, a Senior Youth Parole Worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the State Department of Civil Service's requirement of a Master's degree for the Youth Parole Supervisor promotion examination. His application was denied due to the lack of this degree, despite his advanced graduate study and prior assurances of eligibility based on earlier prerequisites. The court affirmed the Civil Service Department's broad discretion in establishing minimum qualifications for competitive examinations. It ruled that earlier prerequisites or unauthorized assurances do not confer a vested right to bypass current requirements, which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Department of Civil Service. Consequently, the application was denied, and the petition dismissed.

Civil Service LawPromotion ExaminationEducational RequirementsMaster's DegreeYouth Parole SupervisorDiscretionVested RightsArticle 78 ProceedingState EmployeesCivil Service Commission
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 14,605 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