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

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee C. Ritchie v. Ann Caldwell Rupe, as Trustee for the Dallas Gordon Rupe, III 1995 Family Trust

This case involves Ann Rupe, a minority shareholder and trustee for Buddy's Trust, who sued other shareholders and directors of Rupe Investment Corporation (RIC) for alleged oppressive actions and breach of fiduciary duties. Rupe claimed the defendants refused to buy her shares or meet with prospective outside buyers. The trial court ordered a $7.3 million buyout, which the court of appeals affirmed in part, finding the refusal to meet prospective purchasers oppressive, but remanding on valuation. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the defendants' conduct was not 'oppressive' under the Texas receivership statute, as it did not involve an abuse of authority with intent to harm the corporation or create a serious risk of harm to it. The Court clarified that the statute only authorizes the appointment of a rehabilitative receiver and does not permit a direct buyout remedy. Additionally, the Court declined to recognize a new common-law cause of action for 'minority shareholder oppression,' citing existing statutory and common-law protections. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to consider Rupe's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim and the potential for a buyout remedy under that claim.

Shareholder OppressionMinority ShareholdersClosely Held CorporationsFiduciary DutyBusiness Judgment RuleCorporate ReceivershipStatutory InterpretationCommon Law ClaimsCorporate GovernanceStock Buyout
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waite v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiff Basil Waite, a baggage handler for AMR Services Corporation (an independent contractor for American Airlines), suffered a personal injury to his arm on November 18, 1995, when it got caught in a conveyor belt at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He filed a personal injury action against American Airlines, Inc., alleging negligence and breach of duty to maintain a safe premises. American Airlines moved for summary judgment. The court considered theories of recovery including assumed specific duty, common law/statutory duty to maintain safe premises, common law/statutory duty to control work, and vicarious liability for inherently dangerous work. The court found that American Airlines did not breach any duties and the activity was not inherently dangerous. Therefore, American's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityNegligenceWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityBaggage Handling AccidentFederal Civil ProcedureNew York Labor LawVicarious Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holbrook v. Guynes

This case concerns an appeal challenging the legality of the Galveston County Commissioners Court's method of handling its civil legal affairs, specifically its funding and operation of the Galveston County Legal Department. The appellee, a taxpayer, argued that the Department illegally usurped the statutory duties of the Criminal District Attorney. The trial court initially granted the appellee's motion for summary judgment, enjoining the funding and operation of the Department. However, the appellate court, reviewing the summary judgment evidence, concluded that the District Attorney's statutory duty to represent the County in civil matters was not exclusive. Citing precedent, the court found that the Commissioners Court had the authority to employ outside counsel to assist the District Attorney, provided it did not displace his duties. As the evidence showed no usurpation of duties, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the appellants, dissolving the permanent injunction.

County GovernmentLegal DepartmentStatutory InterpretationCivil Legal AffairsCriminal District AttorneyCommissioners CourtSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDelegation of DutiesTexas Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Gilreath

Aetna Casualty and Surety Company paid workers' compensation benefits to its employee, Don Ledbetter. Ledbetter, represented by attorney Sidney W. Gilreath, subsequently settled a third-party action without satisfying Aetna's statutory subrogation lien. Aetna sued Gilreath to recover the benefits paid. The trial court found Gilreath negligently breached a duty, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding no specific statutory duty. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that T.C.A. § 50-914 imposes an implied duty on the employee's attorney to recognize the employer's lien when no other counsel represents the employer's subrogation interest. Due to Aetna's own omission, the Court prorated the net recovery, entitling Gilreath to a full attorney's fee and Aetna to $7,718.84.

Workers' Compensation LienAttorney LiabilitySubrogation RightsStatutory DutyThird-Party Action SettlementImplied Duty of CounselEquitable ConstructionProceeds DisbursementContributory NegligenceAttorney Fees Proration
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Corpus Christi v. Acme Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

Amber Electric Company and Acme Mechanical Contractors, Incorporated, subcontractors, sued the City of Corpus Christi, the owner of a public building project, after the prime contractor, La Man Construction, abandoned the project and its payment bond was discovered to be fraudulent. The subcontractors sought recovery from the City on theories of quantum meruit, governmental taking without compensation, and the City's breach of a statutory duty by negligently approving a bogus payment bond. The trial court found in favor of the subcontractors. On appeal, the court reversed and rendered judgment against the subcontractors on the governmental taking and breach of statutory duty claims, finding no compensable claim or statutory liability against the City. The quantum meruit claim was reversed and remanded for a new trial, as there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the City was reasonably notified that the subcontractors expected payment directly from the City.

Quantum MeruitGovernmental TakingStatutory DutyPayment BondSubcontractor LiabilityPrime Contractor DefaultSurety Bond FraudPublic Works ContractConstruction LawNegligence
References
27
Case No. 13-02-00164-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2003

Guadalupe M. Hernandez v. Gary Honish

Appellants, including Guadalupe M. Hernandez, appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to appellee Gary Honish. Appellants contended the trial court erred because a material fact existed regarding whether Honish owed a common-law or statutory duty and whether the lack of a slow-moving-vehicle emblem was the proximate cause of an accident leading to the death of Juan Jose Hernandez. The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment de novo and found no common-law duty for an escort vehicle and no statutory duty under the Texas Labor Code, as Honish did not meet the criteria for its application. Furthermore, the court concluded that the summary judgment evidence did not raise a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of proximate cause, noting the striking vehicle's driver's testimony about his own vehicle's faulty brakes rather than the absence of a slow-moving-vehicle emblem. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentCommon Law DutyStatutory DutyTexas Labor CodeProximate CauseFarm AccidentWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broadhurst v. Employees Retirement System

Nancy Broadhurst, a Child Protective Services specialist, sought occupational disability retirement benefits from the Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) after suffering a back injury. The Board of Trustees for ERS denied her application, concluding her disability did not meet the statutory definition of "occupational disability," specifically the requirement that the injury result from an "inherent risk or hazard peculiar to a duty." Broadhurst appealed the decision, arguing the Board misinterpreted the statute and that her injury, though occurring while sitting in a chair, was related to the increased risks of her job. The district court affirmed the Board's order. On appeal, the Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the act causing the injury (sitting in a chair) was not peculiar to her duties, and thus she did not satisfy the statutory criteria.

Occupational DisabilityRetirement BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTexas Government CodeInherent RiskPeculiar HazardState Employee BenefitsBack Injury
References
10
Case No. 13-86-417-CV, 13-86-418-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1987

Corpus Christi v. Acme Mechanical Cont.

The City of Corpus Christi appealed two consolidated cases brought by subcontractors Acme Mechanical Contractors, Inc. and Amber Electric Co., Inc. The subcontractors sought payment for work on a public building after the prime contractor, La Man Construction, abandoned the project and its payment bond was found fraudulent. The claims were based on quantum meruit, governmental taking, and breach of a statutory duty by the City for negligently approving the bogus bond. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgments for governmental taking and breach of statutory duty, ruling no such liability existed for the City. The quantum meruit claims were also reversed and remanded for a new trial due to insufficient evidence that the subcontractors reasonably expected payment directly from the City.

Quantum MeruitGovernmental TakingStatutory DutyPayment BondPublic ConstructionSubcontractorPrime ContractorSovereign ImmunityFraudulent BondTexas Constitution
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 6,306 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