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. 03-10-00358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2012

Russell H. Fish, III, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Texas Legislative Service, Partnership v. Texas Legislative Service, Partnership Andrew K. Fish And John C. Fish

This case concerns a dispute within the Texas Legislative Service (TLS) partnership, where Russell H. Fish, III, sued his brothers Andrew K. Fish and John C. Fish for alleged breaches of their partnership agreement, fiduciary duties, and intellectual property misappropriation. Russell claimed Andrew and John improperly set their compensation, denied him access to partnership records, and violated terms regarding the sale of their mother's partnership interest. Furthermore, Russell alleged that Andrew competed with TLS by operating similar businesses in other states and misused TLS's trade secrets and software. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Andrew and John on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed most of the trial court's rulings but reversed and remanded the breach of contract claim related to partner compensation, citing a partial limitations bar and a remaining factual dispute regarding waiver.

Partnership AgreementBreach of ContractFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWaiverTrade SecretsCopyright InfringementPartner CompensationAccess to Records
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state common-law tort claims for smoking-related injuries and deaths. Plaintiffs, including individual smokers and widows of deceased smokers, alleged various tort claims like failure to warn, design defects, misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy against cigarette manufacturers. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants based on preemption. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the Labeling Act does not clearly or unambiguously intend to preempt such common-law claims. The court highlighted the speculative nature of the conflict, the Act's primary goal of public health information, the lack of alternative remedies, and legislative history.

PreemptionFederal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising ActCommon-Law TortSmoking InjuriesProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnDesign DefectsMisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyState Law
References
83
Case No. 03-06-00501-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2007

Edd Hendee, Individually and as Executive Director of C.L.O.U.T. v. David Dewhurst, Tom Craddick, State of Texas, and the Texas Legislative Budget Board

This case originated from a suit filed by Edd Hendee and Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes (C.L.O.U.T.) against the Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, Comptroller, members of the Legislative Budget Board, and the State of Texas. Plaintiffs challenged H.B. 1, enacted in response to the Neeley v. West Orange Cove case, which aimed to shift public school funding. They alleged that H.B. 1's appropriation violated Article VIII, Section 22 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 316 of the Government Code by exceeding the biennial cap on the rate of growth of appropriations. Plaintiffs also argued that Chapter 316 constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The district court granted the State Defendants' plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the unconstitutional delegation claim but reversed and remanded the claims regarding the unconstitutionality and illegality of H.B. 1's appropriation for further proceedings, noting that Plaintiffs are entitled to amend their pleadings to address associational standing defects.

Constitutional LawState AppropriationsSpending CapLegislative Budget BoardTaxpayer StandingSeparation of PowersJudicial ReviewPublic School FinanceTexas ConstitutionGovernment Code
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. City of Galveston

Justice Terry Jennings dissents from the denial of en banc consideration, arguing that the panel's decision to not shield municipalities from the State's tort claims creates a state sovereignty exception to governmental immunity without legislative approval. This, he contends, subjects local governmental units to unlimited tort liability and undermines the Texas Legislature's sole authority to waive sovereign immunity, as explicitly defined in the Texas Tort Claims Act. Justice Jennings highlights that the Legislature has precisely outlined the circumstances under which municipalities are liable for governmental functions and that any expansion of this liability should be a legislative, not judicial, prerogative. He also criticizes the majority's misapplication of the *Eagle Pass* precedent.

Governmental ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityTort Claims ActState SovereigntyLegislative PrerogativeJudicial ActivismEn Banc ConsiderationDissenting OpinionTexas LawLocal Government
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Ass'n of Plastic & Fibre Workers, Local No. 1 v. Spaulding Fibre Co.

This case involves an action for reformation of a contract where the Special Term correctly dismissed the defendant's affirmative defenses of final resolution of issues and res judicata. These defenses were based on a prior arbitration award. However, the arbitrator's written decision explicitly stated that arbitration was not the appropriate forum for contract reformation, deeming it a judicial function. Consequently, the action for contract reformation could not be precluded by the arbitration award because the arbitrator did not address the specific issue. The court referenced established law that res judicata applies only to issues actually resolved by arbitration, and an award is not a bar to a subsequent action if the issue was not passed upon by the arbitrators. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order.

Contract ReformationRes JudicataArbitration AwardScope of ArbitrationJudicial FunctionAffirmative DefensesContract InterpretationAppeal from OrderErie CountyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC

Justice Ellerin's dissenting memorandum argues that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) does not preempt state labor laws concerning an undocumented alien's recovery of lost wages. Ellerin contends that denying such recovery would undermine IRCA's purpose by enabling employers who violate the act to benefit from their unlawful conduct. The dissent emphasizes that Congress did not intend for IRCA to supersede state common law remedies for lost wages in tort actions, citing legislative history. It further asserts that awarding lost earnings to undocumented aliens aligns with state policy and does not significantly impede IRCA's objectives. Therefore, the dissent concludes that New York law should govern, allowing a jury to determine the plaintiff's potential earnings.

Immigration Reform and Control ActIRCA PreemptionUndocumented Workers RightsLost WagesState Labor LawFederal PreemptionEmployer SanctionsTort DamagesSummary JudgmentDissenting Opinion
References
20
Case No. 13-00-342-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2002

R & R Contractors and R & R Field Services, Inc. v. Mary Torres

This case involves an appeal from the Thirteenth District of Texas, Corpus Christi, regarding a wrongful death action. Gregorio Torres, Jr., an employee of R&R Contractors and R&R Oilfield Services, Inc., died after a thousand-pound tank fell on him during unloading operations. His surviving spouse and children filed a gross negligence suit under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, and a jury awarded $200,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, R&R raised two issues: the legal sufficiency of the evidence for gross negligence and the trial court's refusal to apply a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard for exemplary damages. The appellate court agreed that the trial court erred by using a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, citing changes from the 1995 tort reform legislation. However, the court found the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of gross negligence against both the employee-operator and the corporation, based on extreme risk and conscious indifference to safety. The judgment of the trial court was reversed and remanded for further proceedings due to the incorrect standard of proof.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesStandard of ProofClear and Convincing EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceLegal SufficiencyCrane Operation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2004

City of Texarkana v. Cities of New Boston

Seven cities initiated a lawsuit against the City of Texarkana, operating as Texarkana Water Utilities, asserting both contract and tort claims stemming from their water supply relationship. Texarkana invoked governmental immunity, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the court affirmed that governmental immunity does not shield Texarkana from contract claims, citing a legislative waiver derived from the "plead and be impleaded" language in the Texas Local Government Code. However, the court reversed the trial court's decision regarding the tort claims, ruling that these claims are barred by governmental immunity because providing water services falls under Texarkana's governmental functions as defined by the Texas Tort Claims Act. Consequently, the contract claims were left pending, and the tort claims were dismissed.

Governmental ImmunityMunicipalitiesContract LawTort LawWaiver of ImmunityStatutory InterpretationTexas Local Government CodeWater UtilitiesPolitical SubdivisionsHome-Rule Municipalities
References
49
Case No. 09-3356
Regular Panel Decision

Placid Oil Co. v. Williams (In re Placid Oil Co.)

This Revised Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in an adversary proceeding initiated by Placid Oil Company, a reorganized debtor from a 1980s Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Placid sought a determination that post-confirmation tort claims, filed by the Williams Defendants (Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants) in Louisiana state court for asbestos exposure, were discharged by Placid's 1988 bankruptcy confirmation order. The claims arose from the death of Mrs. Myra Williams due to mesothelioma, allegedly caused by indirect asbestos exposure from her husband's work clothes while he was employed by Placid at its Black Lake Facility pre-confirmation. Applying the 'pre-petition relationship test,' the bankruptcy court found that Mrs. Williams' exposure constituted a pre-petition 'claim' and that the Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants were 'unknown creditors.' Concluding that constructive notice via newspaper publication was sufficient for these unknown creditors and that appointing a future claims representative was not warranted, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Placid, discharging the tort claims.

Bankruptcy DischargeAsbestos ExposurePost-Confirmation ClaimsUnknown CreditorsDue Process NoticeSummary JudgmentPre-petition Relationship TestMesotheliomaTort LiabilityChapter 11 Reorganization
References
29
Case No. 20-0366
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2022

Elephant Insurance Company, Llc v. Lorraine Kenyon, Individually and as of the Estate of Theodore Kenyon

Justice Young, joined by Justice Blacklock, concurs with the Supreme Court of Texas's decision, affirming its faithful application of precedents concerning the judiciary's role in creating new tort duties. Young advocates for reconsideration of these precedents in future cases, contending that policy decisions involving social, economic, and political factors are primarily the domain of the legislative branches, not the courts. He contrasts the historical necessity of common-law gap-filling with the modern era's extensive statutory and regulatory frameworks, emphasizing that today's judiciary should focus on interpreting and applying enacted law. Citing Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ruttiger, he suggests the common law may require more "pruning" when legislative actions have addressed previously perceived gaps, asserting that judicial fidelity now involves acknowledging legislative displacement of common-law duties.

Judicial RoleCommon LawTort LawNegligence DutyLegislative SupremacyJudicial RestraintStatutory InterpretationRegulatory SchemesWorkers' CompensationInsurance Law
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 1,735 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