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. 04-24-00757-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2026

Luckenbach Ranch, LLC and Firefly Partners, LLC D/B/A Firefly Partners Land, LLC v. Troy Bowling and Kim Bowling

This case involves an appeal by Luckenbach Ranch, LLC and Firefly Partners, LLC from a final judgment recognizing and defining a road easement in favor of Troy Bowling and Kim Bowling. The dispute originated from a 2019 private road maintenance agreement between Wendy Williams (seller of a portion of land to the Bowlings and later the remainder to Luckenbach) and the Bowlings. The appellants argued that the agreement violated the statute of frauds due to an insufficient description of the easement and that the scope of the easement was too narrow. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the agreement sufficiently identified the servient estate for the express easement and that the language 'access and maintain road entry for easement purposes' was sufficient to grant a road easement. The court also addressed the relocation of the easement's entrance, noting it was declared in the final judgment following a bench trial where Luckenbach stipulated to the move.

Easement LawStatute of FraudsExpress EasementEasement by EstoppelEstoppel by DeedProperty LawReal EstateSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRoad Easement
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers, International Union of America v. General Baking Co.

The case involves a union, representing production and maintenance employees, suing several bakery companies for an alleged lockout. The union brought the action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, claiming a breach of the no-lockout provisions in their collective bargaining agreements. The alleged lockout occurred when the defendant bakery companies halted operations and sent home the plaintiff union's members, even though there was no direct labor dispute between them. This action was a response to a strike by a separate drivers' union against one of the bakery companies. The court defined a lockout as an employer withholding work to gain a concession *from their employees*. Since the defendants were not in a dispute with the plaintiff union and their actions were not intended to coerce concessions from them, the court ruled that no lockout had occurred. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Labor LawLockoutCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActBreach of ContractNo-lockout ClauseStrikeUnionEmployer-employee Relations
References
9
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. E2019-01009-SC-R3-WC
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2020

Potter South East, LLC v. Brian Bowling v. Abigail Hudgens, Director Of The Division Of Workers' Compensation, Tennessee Department Of Labor And Workforce Development, Second Injury Fund

Brian Bowling, an employee of Potter South East, LLC, sought workers' compensation for occupational hearing loss, attributing it to constant loud noise exposure during his employment. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The Circuit Court of Knox County granted this motion, finding Bowling was aware of his work-related injury by September 2012, thus making his 2018 claim untimely. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the trial court's decision. The panel determined that Bowling's own medical report indicated his awareness of hearing loss as early as 2010 or 2011, and he failed to provide sufficient evidence to dispute this timeline under the discovery rule.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsHearing LossOccupational DiseaseSummary JudgmentDiscovery RuleAppellate ReviewTennessee LawMedical EvidenceEmployer Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Harvest Bakery Inc.

This case involves allegations by plaintiffs Maximino Rivera, Miguel Roldan, and Oscar Quintanilla against Harvest Bakery, Inc., Robert Marconti, and Jose Gonzalez. The plaintiffs claim the defendants failed to pay overtime and spread of hours wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The core of the dispute revolves around whether the defendants had a common policy of not paying these wages to their production workers. The Court addresses the defendants' arguments regarding the prematurity and mootness of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, ultimately rejecting them. The Court then proceeds to grant the plaintiffs' motion, certifying a class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees who worked for Harvest Bakery in New York, and appoints class counsel, finding that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance, and superiority) have been met.

Wage and Hour LawOvertime PaySpread of Hours WagesClass Action CertificationRule 23(b)(3)FLSA ViolationNYLL ViolationCommonalityTypicalityNumerosity
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bowles v. Wade

This case involves an appeal by Dallas County and Sheriff Jim Bowles against a trial court's judgment favoring Wade, Waggoner, Herndon, and Scott regarding the recovery of allegedly illegal bail bond approval and affidavit to go off bond (ATGOB) fees. The appellate court, sua sponte, examined its subject matter jurisdiction, specifically focusing on whether the applicants had fulfilled the prerequisite of presenting their claims to the commissioners court before filing suit, as mandated by Texas Local Government Code section 81.041(a). The court determined that Wade failed to plead or demonstrate compliance with this statutory presentment requirement, thus lacking the standing necessary to invoke the trial court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the trial court never had subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. The judgment of the trial court was vacated, and the cause was dismissed.

Subject Matter JurisdictionStandingBail Bond FeesLocal GovernmentStatutory CompliancePresentment RequirementDallas County SheriffCounty LiabilityAppellate ProcedureDeclaratory Judgment
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Yanas v. Bimbo Bakeries

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for wrist pain, including carpal tunnel syndrome and flexor tendonitis, alleging it was an occupational disease from duties at Bimbo Bakeries. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the claim, finding insufficient evidence of repetitive motion and rejecting physician opinions for lacking adequate understanding of the claimant’s work and medical history. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. On appeal, the court further affirmed, emphasizing that the Board’s factual findings regarding occupational disease, when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed, and that the Board is entitled to reject medical evidence deemed inadequately founded.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeRepetitive Strain InjuryMedical CausationSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard DecisionPhysician TestimonyWork ActivitiesCredibility Assessment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fenley v. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc.

Kenneth C. Fenley, Sr. appealed the trial court's granting of Mrs. Baird’s Bakeries, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment in a suit alleging wrongful discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim under Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 451.001(1). Fenley argued the trial court erred and that Mrs. Baird's absence control policy had a disparate impact. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Mrs. Baird's had established a neutrally applied absence-control policy as the reason for termination. Fenley failed to produce controverting evidence of a retaliatory motive or demonstrate that the policy violated the statute or caused a disparate impact.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawDisparate ImpactAbsence Control PolicyTexas Labor CodeCausationCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. ADJ4709951 (SFO 0511409)
Regular
Oct 28, 2010

POMPEYO CASTILLA vs. SUGAR BOWL BAKERY, OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant Pompeyo Castilla seeking reconsideration of a $\$75,000$ compromise and release settlement for a back and nervous system injury. Castilla argued the settlement was too low and he was coerced. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed his petition as untimely, as it was filed approximately one month after the deadline. The Board noted that the filing deadline is jurisdictional and that they would have denied the petition on its merits if it had been timely.

Pompeyo CastillaSugar Bowl BakeryOak River Insurance CompanyADJ4709951SFO 0511409Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWCJBack InjuryNervous System Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2013

Dawes v. Imperial Sugar Co.

Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois initiated a securities fraud class action against Imperial Sugar Company and its officers, alleging stock price inflation through concealed operational issues at the Port Wentworth refinery, including reliance on expensive third-party co-packing and refining services. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the complaint lacked sufficient particularity regarding material misrepresentations, scienter, and loss causation under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b). The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiff's allegations, despite detailing various operational problems, failed to adequately demonstrate material misstatements or the defendants' intent to deceive. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissPleading StandardsPSLRAMaterialityScienterLoss CausationCorporate MisconductFinancial Reporting
References
65
Showing 1-10 of 149 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