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

Exxon Corp. v. Allsup

Robert Allsup sued Exxon Corporation for tortious interference with his lifetime employment contract with King Ranch and with a prospective employment relationship with Don Brock, Distributor (DBD). Allsup, a gate guard since 1961 with a verbal lifetime employment agreement, was effectively managed by Exxon and its subcontractors from 1976. In 1988, Exxon awarded the gate guard contract to DBD, who, under Exxon's influence and based on prior complaints from Exxon personnel, refused to hire Allsup. The jury found Exxon tortiously interfered with Allsup's contract and awarded damages. The appellate court affirmed the finding of tortious interference and associated damages, including exemplary damages, but reversed the finding regarding negligent handling of employment relationship as it constitutes an intentional tort.

Tortious InterferenceContractual RelationshipProspective EmploymentLifetime ContractActual MalicePunitive DamagesJury VerdictTexas Appellate CourtEmployer InterferenceAffirmative Defense
References
46
Case No. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. 1999-05407
Regular Panel Decision

Red Cap Valet, Ltd. v. Hotel Nikko (USA), Inc.

This case involves appeals by defendants Ramon Rosa and Leigh Russo from orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning defamation and tortious interference with a contract. Ramon Rosa's appeal regarding an order denying his cross-motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was withdrawn. The Appellate Division modified another order, granting Leigh Russo's motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action (defamation) against her, finding the statement subject to qualified privilege and the plaintiff failed to allege malice. Additionally, the plaintiff was denied leave to replead the sixth cause of action (conspiracy to tortiously interfere with contractual relations) against both defendants, as New York does not recognize an independent tort for conspiracy. The Supreme Court's decision to not dismiss the second cause of action against Ramon Rosa for tortious interference with prospective contractual relations was upheld.

DefamationTortious InterferenceContractual RelationsMotion to DismissPersonal JurisdictionLeave to RepleadQualified PrivilegeAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureConspiracy
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Reade

This case concerns an appeal from multiple orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Alice Schlesinger. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of implied contract. The court found that the malicious prosecution claim lacked probable cause, emphasizing that a prior judgment against the plaintiffs created a presumption of probable cause not overcome by subsequent reversal. The abuse of process claim failed as there was no indication of perverted use of process for a collateral advantage. Furthermore, the tortious interference claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and proposed amendments for implied contract theories were properly denied due to a lack of meeting of the minds and absence of unjust enrichment.

malicious prosecutionabuse of processtortious interference with contractbreach of implied contractNoerr-Pennington doctrineprobable causeamendment of complaintunjust enrichmentaffirmationappellate review
References
17
Case No. 14-09-00718-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2011

Deborah Downing v. Don Burns and Sherry Burns

Deborah Downing sued Don and Sherry Burns for tortious interference and defamation after they alleged she stole trade secrets and threatened to sue her new employers. Downing, previously an assistant to Don Burns, copied parts of a policy manual she authored before resigning. The Burnses countersued for theft of trade secrets. A jury found in Downing's favor on all claims, but the trial court entered judgment only on tortious interference and theft. The appellate court reversed the judgment, concluding that the Burnses did not conclusively prove theft of trade secrets and that sufficient evidence supported the defamation and tortious interference findings, but the damages for tortious interference were unsupported. The case was remanded for a new trial due to the intertwined nature of the claims.

Tortious InterferenceDefamationTheft of Trade SecretsLost WagesEconomic DamagesLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictRemandAppellate ReviewRealty Business
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AmeriGas Propane, Inc. v. Crook

AmeriGas Propane Inc. sought injunctive relief against former employees J.T. Crook and Ricky Jenkins, and their new employer Empiregas, Inc. of Lebanon, alleging breach of non-compete agreements, tortious interference with contract, and misappropriation of confidential information. The court found that Crook and Jenkins breached their post-employment agreements by soliciting AmeriGas customers using confidential information gained during their prior employment. The defendants and Empiregas were also found liable for tortious interference with contracts and unfair competition. The court concluded that AmeriGas suffered irreparable harm, upholding contracts serves public interest, and enforcing the covenants would not impose undue economic hardship on the defendants. Consequently, the court granted AmeriGas's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Non-compete agreementPreliminary InjunctionBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceConfidential InformationUnfair CompetitionTrade SecretsEmployee SolicitationCustomer GoodwillPropane Gas Industry
References
22
Case No. 01-11-00871-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2012

Kimberley Soukup v. Sedgwick Claims Mangement Services, Inc. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC D/B/A BSRO Bridgestone Americas, Inc. Firestone Polymers, LLC and Stephen T. Smith

Kimberley Soukup appealed the trial court's summary judgments, which were granted against her claims of wrongful discharge and tortious interference with employment. Soukup alleged that her employer, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., constructively terminated her for refusing to engage in illegal activities directed by Bridgestone entities and Stephen T. Smith concerning workers' compensation claims. The Court of Appeals, First District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court concluded that Soukup failed to present evidence that her employer directed her to commit a criminal act which she refused to perform, and declined to expand the "Sabine Pilot" exception to include third-party directives. Furthermore, Soukup's claim for tortious interference lacked evidence of recoverable actual damages, as mental anguish damages are generally not permissible for such claims in Texas.

Wrongful DischargeTortious InterferenceEmployment At-WillSabine Pilot ExceptionWorkers' Compensation ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityThird-Party InterferenceDamages
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cole v. Hall

Justice Rosenberg, in a dissenting opinion, argues against the majority's decision to affirm the dismissal of Cole's cause of action for tortious interference with a statutory right. The dissent asserts that Cole did not waive her right to appeal, highlighting that the exclusivity provision of the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act should not bar a claim stemming from an employer's alleged misconduct in processing a compensation claim, distinct from job-related injuries. Furthermore, Justice Rosenberg advocates for recognizing a duty of good faith and fair dealing on employers within the workers' compensation framework, given their unique control over wage information and the inherent trust relationship. The dissent concludes that Cole’s allegations of false wage reporting by her employer establish a valid cause of action for both tortious interference and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, therefore proposing a reversal of the trial court's order and a remand for further proceedings.

Tortious InterferenceStatutory RightsWorkers' Compensation ActSpecial ExceptionsAffirmative DefenseAppellate ProcedureWaiverDue Process ClauseProperty InterestsGood Faith and Fair Dealing
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elena E. Francisco, Inc. v. Texas Employment Commission

Manuel Diaz, a supervisor, was discharged from his employment for allegedly lying about a December 6, 1987 incident involving alleged marihuana use. The Texas Employment Commission (TEC) granted him unemployment compensation benefits, finding no misconduct. The employer appealed this decision, raising two points of error: (1) insufficient evidence to support the TEC's ruling and (2) trial court error in excluding evidence of other misconduct not presented to the Commission. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, which had upheld the TEC's ruling, emphasizing that the 'substantial evidence' rule is the correct standard of review for TEC decisions, despite statutory language implying a de novo trial. The court also found no error in the trial court's handling of the additional misconduct evidence.

Unemployment BenefitsEmployment TerminationWorkplace MisconductLyingMarihuana UseSubstantial Evidence ReviewTrial De NovoAppellate ProcedureAdministrative LawTexas Law
References
6
Case No. dkt. no. 42
Regular Panel Decision

Robinson v. Purcell Construction Corp.

Plaintiff filed an action against her employer and two co-workers, alleging sexual harassment, discrimination under Title VII and the ADA, retaliation, tortious interference, and prima facie tort. The court reviewed defendants' motion for summary judgment. While hostile work environment, discrimination, tortious interference, and prima facie tort claims were dismissed, the Title VII and ADA retaliation claims against the employer, Purcell Construction Corp., were allowed to proceed. The court also considered the availability of punitive damages for the surviving retaliation claims.

Title VIIAmericans with Disabilities ActHostile Work EnvironmentDiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFederal CourtSexual HarassmentDisability Discrimination
References
71
Showing 1-10 of 15,510 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