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

Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Board

The Texas Association of Business (TAB) filed a declaratory judgment action against the Texas Air Control Board and the Texas Water Commission, challenging the constitutionality of statutes allowing these agencies to levy civil penalties. Specifically, TAB argued that provisions requiring a supersedeas bond or cash deposit for judicial review violated the open courts and jury trial provisions of the Texas Constitution. The trial court denied TAB's relief. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the jury trial challenge, concluding that no right to a jury trial exists for appeals from administrative environmental adjudications. However, the Court reversed the trial court on the open courts challenge, holding that mandating a bond or cash deposit as a prerequisite to judicial review was an unreasonable and unconstitutional restriction on court access.

Constitutional LawAdministrative LawStandingJudicial ReviewOpen Courts ProvisionJury Trial RightEnvironmental LawCivil PenaltiesTexas ConstitutionSeparation of Powers
References
91
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Flooring Corp. v. Environmental Control Board

The case involves a petitioner contractor found to have violated asbestos control program regulations by the Environmental Control Board. The violation stemmed from disturbing asbestos without proper containment and protection measures. The court reviewed the determination, confirming the Board's findings. Consequently, the petitioner's request was denied, and the related CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed. The court emphasized that asbestos abatement regulations apply even when the presence of asbestos is not initially suspected.

asbestos controlenvironmental regulation violationcontractor liabilitypublic health and safetyworker protectionadministrative determination reviewjudicial review of agency actionArticle 78 proceedingregulatory complianceasbestos abatement activities
References
2
Case No. 13-08-00589-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2010

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa and Industrial Risk Insurers v. John Zink Company Fisher Controls Company, Inc. Fisher Controls International, Inc. Fisher Controls Installation and Service Company And Valtek, Inc.

This litigation, stemming from refinery explosions and fires in the 1980s, involved an appeal by National Union Fire Insurance Company and Industrial Risk Insurers (the Insurers) against various contractors (the Contractors). The Insurers, as subrogees of Valero Energy Corporation, sought damages for product liability, negligence, breach of contract, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations. The core legal dispute centered on whether the Contractors qualified as 'subcontractors' under a master contract between Valero and M.W. Kellogg Construction Company, which contained extensive waiver and release provisions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's final summary judgment, concluding that the Contractors were indeed subcontractors, the express negligence doctrine did not apply to the post-act release, and Valero had validly waived its DTPA claims, thereby binding its subrogees.

Contractual WaiversSubrogation RightsSummary Judgment AppealExpress Negligence RuleDeceptive Trade Practices ActParol Evidence Rule ApplicationJudicial AdmissionsConstruction ContractsInsurance LitigationThird-Party Beneficiary
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Fulton Sylphon Division, Robertshaw Controls Co.

Willie J. Johnson, a black male, filed a Title VII lawsuit against his employer, Fulton Sylphon Division of Robertshaw Controls Company, alleging racial discrimination regarding a denied transfer to the Numerical Control Department and subsequent retaliatory discharge. Johnson claimed he was denied promotion due to his race and fired in retaliation for his protected activities. The defendant argued that Johnson's excessive absenteeism, poor work performance, and lack of qualifications were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decisions. The court found that Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, concluding he was not qualified for the transfer due to his consistent poor work record. Furthermore, his discharge was found to be a result of his ongoing absenteeism and uncooperative attitude, not retaliation. The court ruled in favor of the defendant.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliatory DischargeAbsenteeismPoor Work PerformancePrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas TestPretextStatistical Evidence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snively v. Peak Pressure Control, LLC

Plaintiffs Jason Snively, Stephen Clark, and others similarly situated filed a motion for conditional certification against Defendants Peak Pressure Control, LLC and Nine Energy Service, LLC. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically that Pressure Control Operators were not paid overtime wages despite working in excess of 40 hours per week, instead receiving a base salary and bonuses. The court reviewed the motion under the Lusardi two-stage approach and found sufficient evidence that aggrieved and similarly situated individuals exist and desire to opt-in. Consequently, the court granted in part the motion for conditional certification, setting forth directives for a revised notice to potential plaintiffs, including a 60-day opt-in period and approval for notice dissemination via mail, email, and workplace posting.

FLSACollective ActionConditional CertificationOvertime WagesWage and HourPressure Control OperatorsOilfield ServicesFair Labor Standards ActEmployer LiabilityMisclassification
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2000

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Credit Bancorp, Ltd.

Stephenson Equity Company (SECO), a plaintiff-intervenor, moved to compel non-party Swiss American Securities Inc. (SASI) to produce documents related to a pooled omnibus account held by Credit Suisse (Zurich) at SASI, believing these documents would identify beneficial owners, specifically Credit Bancorp. SASI opposed, arguing it lacked control over such specific information as broker-dealer regulations do not mandate identifying ultimate beneficial owners in pooled corporate accounts, and also referencing Swiss bank privacy laws. The court ultimately denied SECO's motion, concluding that SECO failed to demonstrate that SASI had the requisite control or access to the Credit Bancorp-specific documents in the ordinary course of business.

Discovery motionMotion to compelRule 45 FRCPSubpoena duces tecumBroker-dealer regulationsOmnibus accountsBeneficial ownershipCorporate controlSister corporationsSecurities law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

Robert Sullivent filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit against his employer, Johnson Controls, Inc., under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Johnson, which Sullivent subsequently appealed. Concurrently, Sullivent's union initiated grievance arbitration, which also concluded in favor of Johnson. Johnson then sought to dismiss Sullivent's appeal, arguing the arbitration decision preempted the state action. The court of appeals agreed and dismissed the appeal. However, a higher court reversed this decision, stating that state causes of action regarding labor disputes are permissible if they do not require interpretation of collective bargaining agreements, thereby ruling that Sullivent's action was not preempted and remanding the case for further consideration.

Wrongful dischargeWorkers' Compensation ActArbitration preemptionCollective bargaining agreementState law preemptionFederal preemptionSummary judgmentAppellate reviewWrit of errorRemand
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Chirino v. Sanitary Controls, Inc.

This case concerns appeals from Workers’ Compensation Board decisions that upheld the State Insurance Fund's cancellation of a workers’ compensation policy for Sanitary Controls, Inc. due to nonpayment. The Fund sent a cancellation notice on November 23, 1976, effective December 11, 1976. Sanitary received it eight days before the effective date. Concurrently, Sanitary filed for bankruptcy, and a court order stayed proceedings against it but did not explicitly stop the policy cancellation. The appeals court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that service of cancellation is effective upon mailing, not receipt, as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 54, subd 5, and that the bankruptcy filing did not negate Sanitary’s insurance obligations.

Policy CancellationNonpayment of PremiumBankruptcy LawService of NoticeInsurance LiabilityAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationEmployer ObligationsInsurer ObligationsBoard Decisions
References
4
Case No. 03-04-00632-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2006

State of Texas v. Precision Solar Controls, Inc.

The State of Texas, representing TxDOT, sued Precision Solar Controls, Inc., for breach of contract and warranty regarding allegedly defective traffic signals. Precision Solar filed a counterclaim for business disparagement, asserting the State waived sovereign immunity by initiating the suit. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed, holding that by filing suit, the State waives its sovereign immunity against germane counterclaims, even if they are intentional torts, as the core facts concerning the signals' quality and warranty performance are common to both claims.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityCounterclaimsBusiness DisparagementBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
31
Case No. 14-02-01252-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2003

Anchor Fumigation & Pest Control, Inc. v. Conrad Cortes

Conrad Cortes (appellee) sued his former employer, Anchor Fumigation and Pest Control, Inc. (appellant), alleging disability discrimination and workers’ compensation retaliation. A default judgment was entered against Anchor due to its failure to file an answer. Anchor appealed the denial of its motion for a new trial, arguing its failure to answer was due to mistake. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Anchor did not provide competent proof that its agent's failure to file an answer was accidental and not a result of conscious indifference, thus failing to meet the Craddock requirements for a new trial.

Default judgmentMotion for new trialAppellate reviewAbuse of discretionConscious indifferenceMistakeMeritorious defenseWorkers' compensation retaliationDisability discriminationTexas civil procedure
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 7,570 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