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. 08-07012-CAG
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2010

In Re Acm-Tex., Inc.

This case originated from an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court, involving a dispute between Texas Architectural Aggregate, Inc. (TAA) and ACM-Texas, LLC and Applied Chemical Magnesias Corp. (ACM). The core of the dispute revolved around a 1999 'Letter Agreement' for mining and processing brucitic marble on TAA's property. TAA sought relief for lack of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and trespass. ACM filed counterclaims for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and promissory estoppel, among others. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland Division, found the Letter Agreement to be unenforceable due to a lack of essential terms and failure to satisfy the statute of frauds. The court denied TAA's claims for fraud, accounting, tortious interference, and negligence. However, TAA's claim for unjust enrichment was granted, awarding TAA $7,125,073.08 for minerals unlawfully mined and sold by ACM. TAA's conversion and trespass claims were also granted, but the damages were subsumed into the unjust enrichment award. Conversely, while most of ACM's counterclaims were denied, its claim for promissory estoppel was granted, awarding ACM $75,000 for its detrimental reliance on TAA's promises to construct a mill.

BankruptcyAdversary ProceedingContract DisputeMineral LeaseMining RightsUnjust EnrichmentPromissory EstoppelFraudTrespassConversion
References
101
Case No. 08-70200
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Architectural Aggregate, Inc. v. ACM-Texas, LLC (In re ACM-Texas, Inc.)

This case concerns a protracted dispute between Texas Architectural Aggregate, Inc. (TAA) and Applied Chemical Magnesias Corporation (ACM) and ACM-Texas, LLC, over mineral mining rights in Culberson County, Texas. TAA filed various claims including breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and trespass, while ACM counter-claimed for similar issues. The Court deemed the initial 1999 Letter Agreement unenforceable due to a lack of material terms and non-compliance with the statute of frauds. Ultimately, TAA was awarded $7,125,073.08 for ACM's unjust enrichment, conversion, and trespass related to unlawfully mined materials. ACM, in turn, received $75,000 in reliance damages under promissory estoppel for the construction of a mill, with all other claims and counterclaims denied.

Mining DisputeMineral RightsContract DisputeUnjust EnrichmentPromissory EstoppelConversionTrespassBankruptcy Adversary ProceedingLetter Agreement EnforceabilityFraud Claims
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 1996

In re the Claim of Buono

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board concerning a claimant's eligibility for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) under the Federal Trade Act of 1974. The claimant, a technical writer at a microchip production facility, was denied TAA benefits because her role did not involve the actual physical production of chips. The Board's interpretation of the statutory language was deemed rational and reasonable. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision, upholding the claimant's ineligibility for trade adjustment assistance.

Unemployment InsuranceTrade Adjustment AssistanceFederal Trade Act of 1974Eligibility for BenefitsTechnical WriterMicrochip ProductionStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewForeign CompetitionDenial of Benefits
References
1
Case No. 05-20-00380-CV, 05-20-00387-CV, 05-20-00388-CV, 05-20-00389-CV, 05-20-00390-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2022

Prestonwood Tradition, LP Tradition Management, LLC Prestonwood TSL, LP Prestonwood TSL GP, LLC v. Sherril Kerr, Individually and as the Independent and Representative

This dissenting opinion argues that the majority court erred by concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in determining gateway issues of arbitrability. Justice Partida-Kipness asserts that the trial court appropriately decided arbitrability because the American Arbitration Association (AAA) deferred the decision to the state court, and the Estate Representatives, as non-signatories, are not bound to arbitrate arbitrability simply by the incorporation of AAA rules. Furthermore, the dissent contends that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is inapplicable as the transaction does not involve interstate commerce, thus making the Texas Arbitration Act (TAA) the governing law. Under the TAA, the arbitration agreements are deemed unenforceable for personal injury claims due to a lack of required signatures.

Arbitration AgreementArbitrabilityNon-SignatoryTexas Arbitration ActFederal Arbitration ActInterstate CommercePersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewContract EnforcementGateway Issues
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nafta Traders, Inc. v. Quinn

The case concerns an arbitration agreement between Nafta Traders, Inc. and former employee Margaret A. Quinn, who sued for sex discrimination. After an arbitrator awarded Quinn damages, Nafta sought to vacate the award, citing legal errors by the arbitrator, which their agreement prohibited. The district court confirmed the award, and the court of appeals affirmed, ruling that the Texas General Arbitration Act (TAA) does not permit parties to contractually broaden judicial review of arbitration awards, aligning with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) as interpreted in *Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc.* The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the TAA allows parties to agree to expanded judicial review for reversible error and that the FAA does not preempt such state-law agreements. The case was remanded to the court of appeals for a review of the merits of Nafta's challenges to the arbitration award.

Arbitration agreementjudicial reviewvacaturFederal Arbitration ActTexas General Arbitration Actreversible erroremployment lawsex discriminationarbitrator's authoritycontract law
References
41
Case No. 08-08-00348-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2009

in Re: Swift Transportation Company, Inc.

Swift Transportation Company, Inc. (Relator) seeks a writ of mandamus against Judge David C. Guaderrama to compel arbitration in a case involving Jose Valtierra, a former employee. Valtierra, an over-the-road truck driver, sued Swift for negligence after sustaining a job-related injury, despite Swift having an Injury Benefit Plan with a mandatory arbitration clause. The court addressed whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) or the Texas General Arbitration Act (TAA) applies to Swift's Injury Benefit Plan, given Valtierra's status as a transportation worker. The court concluded that the Injury Benefit Plan is an employment contract under Section 1 of the FAA, rendering the FAA inapplicable. Furthermore, the TAA did not apply because Valtierra's personal injury claim lacked a signed arbitration agreement advised by counsel. Ultimately, the court held that Swift's arbitration agreement was void and unenforceable under Section 406.033(e) of the Texas Labor Code, thereby denying Swift's petition for mandamus relief.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Arbitration ActEmployment ContractTransportation Workers ExemptionTexas Labor CodeMandamus ReliefNegligence ClaimInjury Benefit PlanNon-subscriber Employer
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Ford

The claimant appealed decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) benefits. The initial February 8, 1999 decision was superseded by a May 21, 2001 decision, which the court reviewed. The court found that the Board's denial of further training was reasonable because the claimant had already received suitable paralegal training under Labor Law § 599. The claimant left her paralegal employment to continue law school, rather than finding permanent work in the field for which she was already trained. Consequently, the court affirmed the May 21, 2001 decision and dismissed the appeal from the April 5, 1999 decision as moot.

Trade Adjustment AssistanceTAA BenefitsUnemployment InsuranceEligibilityVocational TrainingParalegal TrainingAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFederal Trade Act
References
5
Case No. 01-08-00296-CV; 01-08-00418-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2008

in Re Texas Best Staff Leasing , Inc. D/B/A Alt-Source

Texas Best Staff Leasing, Inc. d/b/a Alt-Source (Alt-Source) sought relief from the trial court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration through an interlocutory appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus. Alt-Source argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to compel. The appellate court determined that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governed the agreement and that Alt-Source had waived its argument under FAA section 5 by failing to present it to the trial court. Additionally, the court found the Texas Arbitration Act (TAA) inapplicable to the case. Consequently, the court dismissed the interlocutory appeal and denied the petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Arbitration ActWaiver DoctrineMandamus ReliefInterlocutory AppealJudicial DiscretionContract EnforceabilityAlternate Arbitrator SelectionDispute Resolution System
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Education Agency v. Maxwell

This case involves the constitutionality of former TEX.EDUC.CODE § 35.030, which mandated confidentiality for TAAS tests and prevented parents from viewing them. Larry Maxwell and other parents sued the Texas Education Agency and other defendants, asserting violations of their constitutional rights, particularly their fundamental right to direct their children's upbringing and education. The trial court initially found the statute unconstitutional and issued an injunction. However, while the appeal was pending, the legislature repealed Section 35.030, rendering the core constitutional issue moot. The appellate court vacated the injunction as moot but reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on attorney's fees, finding that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 despite the mootness of the primary issue.

Parental RightsEducation LawConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentMootness DoctrineAttorney's FeesCivil RightsTexas Education CodeTAAS Tests
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2013

Baylor Health Care System v. Equitable Plan Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs Baylor Health Care System, Baylor University Medical Center, and Heart Hospital Baylor Plano (collectively "Baylor") sought to vacate an arbitration award in favor of Defendant Equitable Plan Services, Inc. ("EPS"). Baylor argued that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in interpreting contracts related to healthcare claims payments. The court granted Baylor's motion to reconsider a prior opinion but ultimately affirmed the arbitration award. It rejected the magistrate judge's prior determinations regarding the applicability of the Hospital Services Agreement (HSA) arbitration provision and the Texas Arbitration Act (TAA), finding instead that an alternative self-administered arbitration agreement governed the dispute. The court denied Baylor's motion to vacate the award and granted EPS's cross-application to confirm it, also determining prejudgment and post-award interest.

Arbitration AwardContract InterpretationAgency RelationshipTexas Arbitration ActFederal Arbitration ActPrejudgment InterestPost-Award InterestHealthcare ClaimsThird-Party AdministratorMotion to Vacate
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 14 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