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. 03-98-00572-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1999

Edie Crain v. Smithville Regional Hospital and James W. Langford

Edie Crain, a former administrator for Smithville Regional Hospital, appealed a summary judgment in favor of the Hospital. Crain was terminated after sustaining a back injury at work and reported it. She alleged retaliatory discharge and argued the Hospital waived sovereign immunity by failing to provide workers' compensation insurance as required for political subdivisions. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the Hospital did not waive its sovereign immunity by non-compliance with the Workers' Compensation Act and, as a nonsubscribing employer, was not subject to the anti-retaliation provisions of the Texas Labor Code.

Summary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityWorkers' Compensation ActRetaliatory DischargeNonsubscribing EmployerPolitical SubdivisionTexas Labor CodeTort Claims ActAppellate ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2006

Velez v. Daar

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff sought damages for psychological and emotional injuries stemming from a failure to diagnose thyroid cancer. The plaintiff engaged in psychotherapy with Dr. Velma Stade and initially limited the disclosure of related notes. However, during a deposition, the plaintiff disclosed that factors beyond the thyroid cancer, such as work environment and family issues, contributed to his psychological symptoms. Consequently, the defendant sought full disclosure of Dr. Stade's notes, arguing that the plaintiff had waived his psychotherapist-client privilege. The Supreme Court reversed the motion court's protective order, determining that the plaintiff had indeed waived the CPLR 4508 social worker-patient confidentiality privilege by placing his psychological condition in controversy, thereby making the disclosure of the sensitive records warranted.

medical malpracticepsychotherapyconfidentiality privilegewaiver of privilegeCPLR 4508psychological injuriesemotional distressthyroid cancerdisclosure of recordssocial worker-patient privilege
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

the Note Investment Group, Inc. v. Associates First Capital Corp., Successor by Merger to Associates Financial Services Company, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a dispute between The Note Investment Group, Inc. (TNIG) and Associates First Capital Corp. (Associates) regarding the sale of partial interests in seller-financed notes. TNIG sued Associates for breach of an alleged 'Global Agreement' and individual Deed of Trust Participation Agreements (DOTPAs), claiming Associates failed to purchase remainder interests and to pay excess proceeds. Associates made a settlement offer and later tendered funds for the DOTPA claims. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Associates on the Global Agreement claims, found Associates' tender valid, denied TNIG attorney's fees, and awarded Associates litigation costs. TNIG appealed these rulings, arguing errors in the litigation cost award, the tender's validity, and the summary judgment reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all points.

Contract DisputeSeller-Financed NotesContracts for DeedDeed of Trust Participation AgreementsBreach of ContractConversionSummary JudgmentSettlement OfferTender of FundsAttorney's Fees
References
42
Case No. 03-98-00561-CV, 03-98-00624-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1999

Smithville Independent School District and Steven Tom v. Jerry Hoskins

Jerry Hoskins, a teacher, was terminated by Smithville Independent School District (District) following a recommendation from Superintendent Steven Tom for good cause. Hoskins appealed to the Commissioner of Education, which was unsuccessful. He then brought suit in district court, seeking judicial review and raising claims of breach of contract, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the District and Tom. The district court affirmed the Commissioner's decision and severed Hoskins's administrative claim, but denied the District's plea to the jurisdiction on Hoskins's independent claims. Both Hoskins and the District appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's actions in both respects, finding due process was afforded, good cause for termination was proven, and Hoskins had exhausted administrative remedies.

Education LawTeacher TerminationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAdministrative LawExhaustion of Administrative RemediesJudicial ReviewSchool District LiabilityBreach of ContractDefamation
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2011

Charlotte Scott Forbess v. Michael E. Forbess

This case involves the valuation of assets for division of marital property and alimony in a divorce between Charlotte Scott Forbess (Wife) and Michael E. Forbess (Husband). The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decisions regarding the division of Husband's interest in a real estate partnership and the Smithville Note, as well as the alimony award. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Wife had waived several issues due to procedural non-compliance. A subsequent petition to rehear filed by the Husband was denied.

Marital property valuationAlimony awardDivorce proceedingsEquitable distributionReal estate partnershipSmithville NoteAppellate procedureWaiver of issuesSpousal supportAsset division
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Argudin

This opinion addresses a legal issue raised during a jury trial where the defendant was accused of third-degree assault and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The defense demanded that the prosecution produce notes taken by a private attorney's secretary from the complainant, considering them Rosario material for cross-examination. The prosecution argued they neither possessed nor controlled these notes, and the attorney asserted attorney-client privilege. The court ruled that the notes are not Rosario material, citing lack of prosecution possession or control and the statutory attorney-client privilege. Consequently, the prosecution is not obligated to produce the notes for trial.

Rosario MaterialDiscoveryAttorney-Client PrivilegeProsecutorial ControlWitness StatementCriminal ProcedureAssaultWeapon PossessionTrial EvidenceConfidentiality
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alamo Bank of Texas v. Palacios

Alamo Bank of Texas sued Oscar Palacios to collect on a promissory note after Ponciano Garcia, represented by Palacios, forged checks and cashed them at the bank. Palacios had co-signed a renewal note, anticipating Garcia's worker's compensation claim would cover the bank's losses from the forged checks. The bank confronted Garcia and, according to Palacios, agreed not to prosecute if he signed the note. However, the bank had already filed a report with the FBI. The trial court found that the bank concealed this material fact from Palacios and was therefore equitably estopped from collecting on the note. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the equitable estoppel defense, thus making it unnecessary to rule on other points of error.

Promissory NoteEquitable EstoppelConditional DeliveryFraudParol Evidence RulePleading AmendmentAbuse of DiscretionSufficiency of EvidenceContract LawBanking Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. (Motel) sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. (USRP) and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of contract. The dispute stemmed from a 'put option' agreement where USRP was obligated to purchase a promissory note from Motel, contingent on Bar S Restaurants, Inc. not being in uncured material default of a lease agreement. USRP refused to buy the note, claiming Bar S was in default, but a jury found in favor of Motel, awarding $550,000. On appeal, the court affirmed the jury's findings on liability and damages, but modified the judgment to mandate Motel's transfer of the note to USRP. The case was also remanded to the trial court for a recalculation of prejudgment interest, acknowledging that Bar S had continued interest payments on the note.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
21
Case No. W1999-00445-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2000

Johnna Hayes v. Jeff Hayes

This appeal concerns a dispute over child support obligations and the enforcement of a promissory note between Johnna Lea Hayes (Beuerlein) and Jeff C. Hayes. The trial court made several findings, including Mr. Hayes' annual income, child support obligation, arrearage, and Ms. Beuerlein's debt under a promissory note. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discretion to apply child support retroactively but reversed its calculation of Mr. Hayes' income by excluding certain business expenses. It also reversed the trial court's decision to set off Mr. Hayes' child support obligation against Ms. Beuerlein's debt from the promissory note, stating that Mr. Hayes should be granted a judgment for the full amount. The case is remanded for recalculation of income, child support, and a determination of attorney's fees for Mr. Hayes related to the promissory note.

child supportpromissory notemarital dissolution agreementincome calculationretroactive child supportset-offattorney's feesappellate reviewchancery courtTennessee law
References
10
Case No. 94 Civ. 0527 (SS)
Regular Panel Decision

Dow Jones & Co. v. United States Department of Justice

This opinion and order by District Judge Sotomayor addresses Lisa Foster's motion to intervene in a case where Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Robert L. Bartley sought to compel the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release a note written by former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster. Previously, the court had enjoined the DOJ from withholding the note. Mrs. Foster, Mr. Foster's widow, moved to intervene to appeal the January 5, 1995 order that mandated the release of the note. The court granted Mrs. Foster's motion to intervene, both as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) and permissively under Rule 24(b). The decision highlighted Mrs. Foster's acute interest in preventing the release of the note due to personal privacy concerns and the potential divergence of interests with the DOJ regarding an appeal, ruling that her interest would not be adequately protected otherwise.

Intervention of RightPermissive InterventionFreedom of Information ActSummary JudgmentPrivacy InterestAppellate ReviewTimeliness of MotionAdequate RepresentationExemption 7(A)Exemption 7(C)
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 3,790 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