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. 03-96-00283-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1997

Marshall Land v. AT & S Transportation, Inc.

Marshall Land sued his employer, AT & S Transportation, Inc., claiming a failure to provide a safe work environment after sustaining a back injury. AT & S, a nonsubscriber to the workers' compensation system, filed a counterclaim for sanctions under Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court awarded AT & S $48,000 in attorney's fees as sanctions against Land, finding his pleadings groundless, brought in bad faith, and false, and that Land committed fraud. Land appealed, arguing the sanctions order was defective for not stating particulars of good cause and that the court abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Land waived the complaint regarding lack of particularity by not objecting at trial and that the partial record provided was insufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion regarding the sanctions.

SanctionsRule 13Appellate ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionSufficiency of EvidenceWaiverGood CauseAttorney's FeesCivil ProcedureEmployer Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State, Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Reynolds-Land, Inc.

This is a summary judgment case where the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (Department) sought indemnity from Reynolds-Land, Inc. (Reynolds-Land) based on a written agreement. An employee of Reynolds-Land, Grover Hicks, was injured and received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA). Hicks then sued the Department for negligence, and TEIA intervened for subrogation. The Department settled with Hicks and TEIA, paying $25,000 to TEIA for its subrogation interest. The Department then filed a third-party action against Reynolds-Land for indemnity for this $25,000 payment. Reynolds-Land moved for summary judgment, arguing the indemnity agreement only covered its own negligence and not the Department's, and that the 'express negligence doctrine' from Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Const. Co. was not met. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment against the Department, ruling that the indemnity clause lacked the specificity required by the express negligence doctrine to cover the Department's own alleged negligence.

Indemnity AgreementSummary JudgmentExpress Negligence DoctrineWorkers' CompensationSubrogationContractual InterpretationThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
1
Case No. 06-21-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2022

Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC, UATP Management, LLC, Zoya Enterprises, Ltd., and UA Holdings, LLC v. Hamza Lakhani

Hamza Lakhani, an appellee, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC and several other entities (appellants) after suffering injuries at an adventure park. The appellants sought to compel arbitration based on a release signed by Lakhani. The trial court denied this motion. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial for UATP, Zoya, and UA, concluding no valid arbitration agreement existed between them and Lakhani. However, the court found the arbitration agreement enforceable against Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC, but severed a provision that prohibited the award of punitive or exemplary damages, deeming it unconscionable. The case was subsequently reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to compel arbitration for Lakhani's claims against Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC, consistent with the modified agreement.

ArbitrationPersonal InjuryContract LawUnconscionabilityPunitive DamagesExemplary DamagesSeverability ClauseFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Gross NegligenceAppellate Decision
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2006

Land Master Montg I, LLC v. Town of Montgomery

In this case, petitioners Land Master and Roswind Farmland Corp. challenged the Town of Montgomery's new Comprehensive Plan and Local Laws 4 and 5, arguing they constituted unlawful exclusionary zoning and violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court, presided over by Judge Joseph G. Owen, granted the petitioners' motion regarding these claims, declaring the local laws null and void. The decision highlighted the Town's failure to adequately consider local and regional affordable housing needs and to undertake a thorough environmental review. While some of the petitioners' other claims were dismissed, they were awarded attorneys' fees. The court ordered the reinstatement of petitioners' land use applications under the prior zoning laws.

Zoning LawExclusionary ZoningAffordable HousingState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Comprehensive PlanLocal LegislationLand Use PlanningMulti-Family HousingTraffic ImpactJudicial Review
References
19
Case No. 03-11-00211-CV
Regular Panel Decision

City of New Braunfels, Texas v. Carowest Land, Ltd.

The City of New Braunfels appealed a district court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a lawsuit filed by Carowest Land, Ltd., concerning a flood control project. Carowest's claims included inverse condemnation, constitutional violations under Section 1983, breach of contract, and common-law torts, all arising from the City's actions regarding land conveyance, fill material, and contractual obligations. The appellate court reversed the denial of the plea for the inverse condemnation and Section 1983 claims, with the latter remanded for potential amendment, finding jurisdictional defects. However, the court affirmed the denial of the plea for Carowest's common-law contract and tort claims, as well as associated attorney's fees, citing waivers of immunity under Local Government Code chapter 271 and the jurisdiction created by the City's own monetary counterclaims. Additionally, the district court's denial of the City's plea regarding Carowest's declaratory claims under the Texas Open Meetings Act, Local Government Code chapter 252, and concerns about the Yantis delay claim were also affirmed.

Governmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionInverse CondemnationBreach of ContractSection 1983Declaratory JudgmentOpen Meetings ActLocal Government CodeMunicipal LawProperty Rights
References
84
Case No. 148 AD3d 988
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Derosas v. Rosmarins Land Holdings, LLC

Plaintiff Eduardo Derosas, a maintenance worker, sustained serious injuries while cutting a downed tree at a camp. He received workers' compensation benefits for his injuries. The Supreme Court, Orange County, granted summary judgment to defendants Rosmarins Land Holdings, LLC, and Scott L. Rosmarin, dismissing the amended complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found claims against Rosmarin barred by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provision, citing his coemployee status. It also determined that tree cutting was not covered under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), and Rosmarins Land Holdings, LLC, as an out-of-possession landlord, was not liable under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentCoemployee ImmunityOut-of-Possession LandlordTree RemovalMaintenance Worker InjuryPremises Liability
References
25
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07392
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2018

Catlyn & Derzee, Inc. v. Amedore Land Developers, LLC

Plaintiff Catlyn & Derzee, Inc. appealed an order that granted defendants Amedore Land Developers, LLC's cross motion for partial summary judgment. The dispute originated from a land purchase contract, focusing on compensation for additional approved residential units and a $210,000 credit. The Supreme Court dismissed claims for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, citing that these claims were either precluded by the existing contract or duplicative of the breach of contract claim. The Appellate Division affirmed these dismissals and also upheld the Supreme Court's decisions regarding discovery motions. Consequently, the only remaining viable claim is the one concerning the $210,000 credit taken by the defendants.

Contract DisputeReal EstateLand DevelopmentBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentImplied Covenant of Good FaithSummary JudgmentDiscovery MotionsAppellate ReviewPurchase Agreement
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TRQ Captain's Landing L.P. v. Galveston Central Appraisal District

This case involves an appeal by TRQ Captain's Landing, L.P. and American Housing Foundation (appellants) against Galveston Central Appraisal District (appellee) regarding a granted summary judgment. The appellants sought an exemption from ad valorem taxes for 2003, pursuant to section 11.182(b) of the Texas Tax Code, for the Captain’s Landing Apartments. The core issues were whether equitable owners could claim such an exemption and if their application was timely filed under section 11.436 of the Texas Tax Code. The court reversed the summary judgment, ruling that AHF, as an equitable owner through its controlling interest in TRQ, qualified for the exemption and that the application was timely filed.

Ad Valorem Tax ExemptionEquitable OwnershipTexas Tax CodeCommunity Housing Development OrganizationSummary Judgment AppealReal Property TaxationStatutory InterpretationTax LawCharitable OrganizationsLimited Partnership
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Irving Bank & Trust Co. v. Second Land Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a temporary injunction that restrained a trustee's sale of land. The injunction was sought by Fowler Brothers Sand & Gravel, its partners, and Second Land Corporation against Irving Bank & Trust Company, alleging that notes secured by deeds of trust on the property were usurious, thereby negating the right to foreclose. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discretion to issue the temporary injunction, preserving the status quo until the merits of the usury claims could be fully litigated. The court declined to decide the usury questions on interlocutory appeal, finding that the appellees made a sufficient showing of probable right to recovery and probable injury if the injunction was not granted. The court also determined that a suit for usury penalties was not an adequate legal remedy given the potential loss of real estate and business interruption, which would not be adequately compensated by money damages.

Temporary InjunctionUsuryDeeds of TrustForeclosureProbable RightProbable InjuryAdequate Legal RemedyInterlocutory AppealStatus QuoSupersedeas Bond
References
13
Case No. 08-18-00005-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2018

Caples Land Company, L.L.C. v. the City of El Paso, Texas and Its Building and Standards Commission

Caples Land Company, L.L.C. appealed a substantial civil penalty levied by the City of El Paso's Building and Standards Commission concerning the 'American Furniture Building'. The dispute originated from compliance issues and the assessment of an initial $2.1 million fine, later reduced to $1.2 million by the district court. Caples Land argued violations of due process, the discriminatory application of a vague Vacant Building Ordinance, and that the fine constituted a regulatory taking exceeding the property's value. The district court upheld the Commission's order as legal and enforceable, but modified the daily civil penalty amount. This appeal seeks reversal or remand of that final judgment.

Building StandardsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineRegulatory TakingExcessive FinesProperty LawMunicipal LawAppellate ProcedureEl Paso County
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 254 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