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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clarke v. LR SYSTEMS

Walter Clarke, a 74-year-old former employee of Favorite Plastics, Inc., filed a products liability action against LR Systems and Lasits Rohline Service, Inc. for injuries sustained in an industrial accident on August 13, 1996. Clarke's right hand was pulled into an SG Granulator 300 machine, resulting in the loss of part of his thumb and injury to three fingers. He alleged negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty, claiming inadequate warnings and a design defect in the grinder. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim, finding Clarke was aware of the danger. However, the motion for summary judgment was denied on the defective design claims, ruling that the expert testimony regarding the feasibility of an interlocked guard was admissible.

Products LiabilityIndustrial AccidentGranulator MachineDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyNip Point HazardV-belt DriveMachine Safety
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banzhaf v. ADT Security Systems Southwest, Inc.

Angie King and Frederick Banzhaf (represented by his parents) sued ADT Security Systems Southwest, Inc. after King was severely injured and Banzhaf was killed during a robbery at their workplace, Herman’s Sporting Goods, Inc. The robbery was committed by another Herman's employee and an accomplice. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, design defect, and DTPA violations against ADT, which had provided the security system for Herman's. ADT then filed a third-party claim against Herman's for indemnification based on their contracts. The trial court granted summary judgment to ADT against the plaintiffs and also granted ADT judgment against Herman's. The appellate court partially reversed and remanded the summary judgment regarding the Banzhafs' DTPA claim due to a procedural issue, but affirmed the remainder of the judgment against the plaintiffs and ADT's judgment for indemnification against Herman's.

NegligenceDesign DefectDTPAIndemnificationWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySecurity SystemContract LawExpress Negligence
References
23
Case No. 01-10-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Microcheck Systems. Inc v. Microcheck Systems, Inc., Chris Zigrossi, Scott Murphy, Mike Smith, Individually and D/B/A CMS Technology AKA CMS Technologies, Michoice Technology Systems, Inc., Jim Hayden, Alex Campbell and Jason Jablecki

Appellants MicroCheck Systems, Inc., MicroCheck Solutions, Inc., and John Manning challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to reinstate a case dismissed for want of prosecution. Their attorney, Scarlett May, failed to appear at a docket call due to a mistaken belief that she had been replaced by new counsel, Patrick Hubbard. The trial court denied the motion, stating a policy against missing docket calls. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by not applying the correct legal standard, which requires reinstatement if the failure to appear was due to accident or mistake and not conscious indifference. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionMotion to ReinstateAbuse of DiscretionAttorney ErrorMistake of CounselConscious IndifferenceTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 165aAppellate ReviewSubstitution of CounselTrial Court Discretion
References
11
Case No. 01-19-00300-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2021

Michelle Hudson v. Memorial Hospital System

Michelle Hudson sued Memorial Hospital System, Memorial Hermann Health System, ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation, and C.B. Richard Ellis, Inc. for personal injuries sustained in a malfunctioning elevator on Memorial Hermann's property. Hudson, an employee of Memorial Hermann (a non-subscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act), alleged the defendants were negligent and liable under premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Hudson appealed, arguing the trial court incorrectly applied premises liability principles instead of ordinary negligence and that genuine issues of material fact existed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Hudson's claim against Memorial Hermann sounded exclusively in premises liability and she failed to preserve her argument. The court also found Hudson provided insufficient evidence to overcome the no-evidence summary judgment for CBRE and ThyssenKrupp.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityOrdinary NegligenceSummary JudgmentElevator AccidentWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberEmployer DutyProperty Manager LiabilityMaintenance ServicesAppellate Review
References
44
Case No. 15-25-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2025

The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, the University of Texas System, and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. Gensetix, Inc.

This document is Appellee Gensetix, Inc.'s brief in surreply to an appeal brought by The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, et al., before the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. Gensetix argues that the district court correctly denied the Appellants' plea to the jurisdiction. The core of Gensetix's argument centers on the Appellants' alleged abuse of Eleventh Amendment immunity, characterizing it as an unlawful 'Taking' of Gensetix's exclusive commercialization rights related to patents. The brief distinguishes the current case from Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. The Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. by highlighting the presence of disputed jurisdictional facts and the Appellants' invocation of sovereign power. Gensetix contends that the duration of the misappropriation is irrelevant to liability and asserts that some of the Appellants' arguments regarding contract interpretation are unpreserved. The appellee requests that the appellate court affirm the district court's decision.

Eleventh AmendmentSovereign ImmunityEminent DomainTakings ClausePatent LitigationIntellectual Property RightsCommercialization RightsJurisdictional PleaAppellate ProcedureTexas Courts
References
31
Case No. 13-02-697-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2004

Alfred Martinez v. Wilson Plaza Associates, L.P. and Allied Waste Systems, Inc.

Alfred Martinez appealed a summary judgment ruling that declared he take nothing in his claims against Allied Waste Systems, Inc. Martinez had sued Allied for negligence and strict liability after being injured by a defective garbage dumpster. The appellate court first affirmed its jurisdiction over the appeal, determining the trial court's judgment was final. However, the court found that the trial court abused its discretion by implicitly overruling Martinez's special exceptions, which sought clarification on whether Allied's summary judgment motion was a no-evidence or traditional motion. This ambiguity denied Martinez fair notice of his evidentiary burdens, prejudicing his ability to respond adequately. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary Judgment AppealAppellate JurisdictionNegligence ClaimStrict Liability ClaimSuccessor LiabilityAlter Ego DoctrineSpecial ExceptionsProcedural Due ProcessBurden of ProofTexas Civil Procedure
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Candela v. New York City School Construction Authority

Plaintiff Calogero Candela sustained injuries when a window sash fell on him at a construction site. He brought a claim under Labor Law § 200 against the New York City School Construction Authority, Spacemaster Building Systems, LLC, and TDX-Becom. A jury initially found in favor of the defendants, implicitly concluding they lacked notice of the defective windows. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the jury had no reasonable basis to reject testimony indicating the defendants, particularly Spacemaster, had actual or constructive notice of widespread window balance system defects prior to the accident.

Construction AccidentWindow DefectLabor LawPremises LiabilityNoticeJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNegligenceWorkplace SafetyFalling Object
References
4
Case No. 13-212
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2015

Select Building Systems, Inc. and Tri-Bar Ranch Company, Ltd. v. Robertson Electric, Inc.

This legal document collection details a contract dispute and subsequent litigation concerning the Los Cerritos Hangar project in Uvalde, Texas. The primary parties are Robertson Electric, Inc. (subcontractor/plaintiff) and Select Building Systems, Inc., Tri-Bar Ranch Company, Ltd., G & R Land Company, Inc., and Rodney R. Lewis (defendants). The dispute involves allegations of payment issues, significant project delays, and numerous construction deficiencies, particularly related to roofing, structural components, and electrical wiring. Extensive communications between the parties, including emails and daily/weekly project reports, document the escalating issues, subcontractor terminations, and efforts to assess and rectify defective work. The case also highlights the complexities of managing large-scale construction projects involving multiple contractors and suppliers, culminating in claims for unpaid work and costs for corrective actions.

Contract disputeconstructionpayment disputebreach of contractsubcontractorgeneral contractormechanic's lienconstruction defectschange ordersdelays
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weakley County Municipal Electric System v. Vick

The case involves an appeal by Kenneth Vick and members of Local Union Number 835, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, against an injunction prohibiting picketing of the Weakley County Municipal Electric System. The appeal challenged the constitutionality of the Municipal Electric Plant Law of 1935 as applied to Weakley County and the right of a municipal electric system to enter into collective bargaining agreements with a labor union. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Act. It ruled that while a municipal electric system operates in a proprietary capacity, it remains a governmental agency and thus cannot lawfully enter into collective bargaining agreements with a labor union, making strikes and picketing for such purposes illegal.

Labor DisputeInjunctionPicketingCollective BargainingMunicipal CorporationGovernmental FunctionProprietary FunctionConstitutional LawCounty PowersPublic Employees
References
27
Case No. 2-04-065-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2005

Tarrant County Hospital District D/B/A John Peter Smith Hospital v. GE Automation Services, Inc., F/K/A GE Industrial Systems Solutions, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., F/K/A GE Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company

Appellant Tarrant County Hospital District appealed a summary judgment granted to Appellees GE Automation Services, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company. The suit stemmed from a 1996 transaction where Appellant alleged Appellees provided a defective bus duct system, leading to contract, warranty, products liability, and negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the four-year statute of limitations under the Uniform Commercial Code (Texas Business & Commerce Code § 2.725) barred the contract and warranty claims, overriding governmental immunity. Furthermore, the court held that the economic loss rule precluded Appellant's tort claims, as the alleged damages constituted economic losses to the subject matter of the contract itself.

Summary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityStatute of LimitationsEconomic Loss RuleBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyProducts LiabilityNegligenceUniform Commercial CodeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 2,778 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