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

Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. v. Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas), L.P.

This case addresses the proper method for compensating a landowner for the destruction of trees on their property. Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. (Wheeler) sued Enbridge Pipelines, L.P. (Enbridge) for breach of contract and trespass after Enbridge destroyed several hundred feet of trees while constructing a pipeline, violating an agreement to use an underground boring method. The Texas Supreme Court clarifies the application of the temporary-versus-permanent injury distinction to real property damages, holding it applies to both tort and contract claims and is a question of law for the court. The Court confirms two exceptions to general damage rules: the economic feasibility exception, deeming the injury permanent due to restoration costs significantly exceeding market value diminution, and the intrinsic value of trees exception, allowing recovery for ornamental and utilitarian value even with nominal market value loss. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to address remaining issues consistent with this opinion.

Real Property DamagesBreach of ContractTrespassTree DestructionTemporary vs. Permanent InjuryDamages CalculationEconomic Feasibility ExceptionIntrinsic Value of TreesAppellate ReviewJury Instructions
References
29
Case No. 01-09-00779-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2011

Prime Trees and Landscaping Services D/B/A/ Mulch Matters v. Americon Services Company, Inc.

This breach-of-contract case involved Prime Tree and Landscaping Services (Mulch Matters) appealing a trial court's partial summary judgment and final judgment in favor of Americon Services Company. The dispute centered on a contract for 'select fill' dirt with specific plasticity index (PI) requirements for a construction project. Prime Tree contended the PI specifications were not part of the agreement and raised defenses of fraudulent inducement and lack of authority regarding the contract's terms. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Mulch Matters' estimate had unambiguously incorporated Americon's Purchase Order, thus including the PI specifications in the contract. Additionally, the court upheld the jury's award of $30,500 in damages to Americon, finding sufficient evidence that the costs incurred to remedy the non-conforming dirt were reasonable and necessary.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationParol Evidence RuleFraudulent InducementDamages AwardTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fauser v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC (In re Fauser)

Michael Fauser filed a suit against Green Tree for violating the discharge injunction from his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The court determined that Green Tree willfully violated the injunction by continuing collection efforts for a discharged debt, despite Fauser's explicit requests to stop. After a series of hearings and trials, the court awarded Fauser actual damages for his time and effort, attorney's fees for his legal representation, and punitive damages for Green Tree's egregious and intentional misconduct. The court also imposed prospective sanctions of $1,500.00 per future communication for any additional violations of the discharge injunction by Green Tree, highlighting a systemic issue in their collection practices.

BankruptcyDischarge InjunctionCivil ContemptPunitive DamagesAttorney FeesActual DamagesWillful ViolationCreditor HarassmentConsumer ProtectionFifth Circuit
References
30
Case No. 05-23-00086-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2024

Santa Trevino and Sesar Trevino v. Jalapeno Tree Operating, LLC

Santa Trevino sustained personal injuries while working at a Jalapeno Tree restaurant. Her employer, Jalapeno Tree Operating, LLC, which was a workers' compensation subscriber, provided benefits through its insurer, Texas Mutual. Trevino and her husband subsequently sued Jalapeno Tree for negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium. The trial court granted Jalapeno Tree's motion for summary judgment based on the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Trevinos appealed, arguing that Jalapeno Tree was not covered by workers' compensation insurance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient summary judgment evidence of coverage.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityInsurance CoverageSlip and FallTraumatic Brain InjuryLoss of Consortium
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00910
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Matter of Guevara v. Greenvelvet Tree, Inc.

Claimant Wilfredo A. Guevara sustained injuries while employed by Greenvelvet Tree, Inc. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) attempted to cancel the workers' compensation insurance policy covering Greenvelvet Tree, Inc. for nonpayment of premiums. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that SIF failed to properly cancel the policy with respect to Greenvelvet Tree, Inc., thus holding SIF responsible for the claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that carriers must strictly comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) notice requirements. The court found SIF did not separately serve Greenvelvet Tree, Inc. with the cancellation notice, despite shared corporate interests and address, affirming the continuation of coverage.

Workers' Compensation InsurancePolicy CancellationNotice RequirementsStrict ComplianceEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewNonpayment of PremiumsCorporate EntitiesAdditional InsuredStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 03-10-00709-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Green Tree Servicing, LLC, as Authorized Servicing Agent for Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation v. Travis County

Green Tree Servicing, LLC appealed a post-answer default judgment concerning ad valorem taxes on mobile homes. The original suit was filed by Travis County and other entities against Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation, later substituted with Green Tree. Green Tree failed to appear at trial, resulting in a default judgment. Green Tree filed a motion for new trial, asserting its failure to appear was due to an accident or mistake (attorney transition) and that it had a meritorious defense, arguing that as a repossessing lienholder and not an owner, it was not liable for the taxes under Texas Tax Code Ann. § 32.07. The appellate court applied the Craddock test and found that Green Tree satisfied all three elements. The court adopted the interpretation that a repossessing lienholder is not considered an 'owner' under the tax code. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Post-answer default judgmentAd valorem taxesMobile homesLienholder liabilityProperty ownershipMeritorious defenseCraddock testNew trialStatutory interpretationTexas Tax Code
References
22
Case No. 2-04-315-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2006

John C. Wilen v. William Falkenstein

This appeal arises from a trespass suit initiated by William Falkenstein against his neighbor, John C. Wilen, for directing a tree service to trim a tree on Falkenstein’s property without consent. The trial court awarded Falkenstein actual damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. On appeal, Wilen challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for trespass, damages, and the attorney’s fees award. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of trespass, actual damages, and exemplary damages, including a finding of malice. However, the court determined that attorney’s fees were not recoverable in this tort action, leading to a modification of the judgment to delete the attorney’s fees award, and affirming the trial court’s judgment as modified.

TrespassProperty RightsExemplary DamagesActual DamagesAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewMaliceIntentional TortTree TrimmingProperty Dispute
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilen v. Falkenstein

This case concerns an appeal from a trespass suit filed by William Falkenstein against his neighbor, John C. Wilen. Wilen had directed a tree service to trim a tree on Falkenstein's property without permission while Falkenstein was on vacation, resulting in a jury verdict for Falkenstein. The jury awarded actual damages, exemplary damages for malice, and attorney's fees. On appeal, the court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence for trespass and damages, upholding the jury's findings of trespass, actual damages, and malicious conduct supporting exemplary damages. However, the appellate court modified the judgment by vacating the award of attorney's fees, ruling that such fees are not recoverable in a tort action like trespass under Texas law unless expressly authorized by contract or statute. The trial court's judgment was affirmed as modified.

TrespassProperty RightsNeighbor DisputeTree DamageIntentional TortActual DamagesExemplary DamagesMaliceAttorney's FeesAppellate Review
References
58
Case No. 03-19-00359-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2020

Theodore Reese Kerr, Jr., Individually And Cowpuncher Investments. LLC D/B/A Cowpuncher Services v. Robert W. Lambert and Linda C. Lambert

The Lamberts sued Theodore Reese Kerr, Jr., and Cowpuncher Investments, LLC d/b/a Cowpuncher Services, alleging that herbicide spraying by Kerr damaged and killed over 1,000 oak trees on their property. Kerr had been hired to spray Picloram 22K to eradicate cactus, assuring the Lamberts it would not harm trees. The trial court found Kerr and Cowpuncher liable for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), fraud, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract, awarding $151,950 in damages. On appeal, Kerr and Cowpuncher challenged the sufficiency of evidence for reliance, causation, Kerr's knowledge, and the damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the findings of fact and conclusions of law, including that Kerr knowingly misrepresented the herbicide's safety and that his actions were the producing cause of the Lamberts' damages.

Herbicide damageTree deathDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)NegligenceFraudMisrepresentationCausationProducing causeEconomic damagesProperty damage
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton v. Fant

This lawsuit originated to recover damages to seven acres of land in Bell County, Texas, after approximately 900 cedar trees were cut and removed. The plaintiffs, Billie B. Fant and his sisters Fannie Mae Hurst and Margaret Concillo, sued neighboring landowners, Dr. Dixie Hamilton and Dee De-Onofrio, alleging negligence. The defendants had hired cedar choppers who mistakenly cut trees on the Fants' property instead of their own. A jury found the defendants negligent for failing to instruct the choppers on boundary lines, and the trial court awarded the Fants $3,500 based on the diminution in the land's market value. The defendants appealed, challenging the measure of damages and the sufficiency of evidence regarding negligence and the independent contractor status of the choppers. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the measure of damages and finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on negligence and proximate cause.

Property DamageTimber TrespassNegligenceAppellate ReviewMeasure of DamagesMarket ValueIndependent ContractorProximate CauseBoundary DisputeCedar Cutting
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 4,176 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