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
Oct 24, 2013

Arena v. Delux Transportation Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Joseph Arena sued Delux Transportation Services, Inc. and related entities, claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York State Labor Law (NYLL), New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), and wrongful conversion. Arena argued he was an employee entitled to labor law protections, while defendants asserted he was an independent contractor. The Court applied the "economic reality test" under both FLSA and New York law, considering factors like control over work, opportunity for profit/loss, skill, permanence of relationship, and integral nature of the work. The Court found that Arena drove at his convenience, set his own schedule, retained all fares, and was not significantly controlled or supervised by the defendants. Consequently, the Court determined there was no employer-employee relationship under either FLSA or New York law, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing all claims.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorEconomic Reality TestTaxicab DriverWage ClaimsOvertime PayMinimum Wage
References
32
Case No. 03-10-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2011

the Texas Department of Transportation, and Amadeo Saenz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Director of Texas Department of Transportation v. Sunset Transportation, Inc. MEL Transport, Inc. D/B/A Magnum Transportation And Sunset Prosper, Inc.

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and its executive director appealed a district court order denying their plea to the jurisdiction regarding claims by Sunset Transportation, Inc., MEL Transport, Inc. d/b/a Magnum Transportation, Inc., and Sunset Prosper, Inc. Appellants contended that the claims, brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA), were barred by sovereign immunity. The court found Appellees' APA claims lacked sufficient factual pleading but allowed an opportunity to amend. However, the district court's denial of the plea concerning UDJA claims was affirmed, as some allegations invoked the ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order denying the plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative LawMotor Carrier RegulationFederal PreemptionState Agency AuthorityTransportation LawJurisdictionStatutory ConstructionRegulatory Challenge
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Terex Utilities, Inc. v. Republic Intelligent Transportation Services, Inc.

Terex Utilities, Inc. leased a custom digger derrick truck to Republic Intelligent Transportation Services, Inc. The truck was severely damaged in an accident, leading Terex to sue for breach of contract, asserting Republic failed to pay the full replacement value as per their agreement. Terex sought the cost of a new 2009 truck, while Republic argued for the market value of the 2007 truck or its actual cash value. The trial court denied Terex's motion for summary judgment and granted Republic's. On appeal, the court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the valuation of the truck and the interpretation of "full-replacement value," affirming the denial of Terex's motion, but reversing the grant of Republic's, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Breach of contractSummary judgmentContract interpretationFull replacement valueMarket valueProperty damageRental agreementEquipment leaseAppellate reviewTexas civil procedure
References
11
Case No. 08-11-00342-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2013

Terex Utilities, Inc. v. Republic Intelligent Transportation Services, Inc.

Terex Utilities, Inc. (Appellant) sued Republic Intelligent Transportation Services, Inc. (Appellee) for negligence and breach of contract after a rented hydraulic digger derrick truck was damaged beyond repair. The rental contract required Republic to pay for all losses, including full-replacement value. Republic paid $100,075.13, but Terex claimed the full replacement cost was $138,273.50 for a new 2009 model. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied Terex's motion and granted Republic's. On appeal, the Court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the valuation of the truck and the meaning of "full-replacement value" in the contract. Therefore, the Court affirmed the denial of Terex's summary judgment motion but reversed the grant of Republic's summary judgment motion, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppealContract InterpretationFull Replacement ValueDamages CalculationGenuine Issues of Material FactStandard of ReviewRemandRental Agreement
References
14
Case No. 08-14-00254-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2017

Moore Freight Services, Inc., Charles Chip Strader, and XMEX Transports, L.L.C. v. Lorena Munoz, Ind. and on Behalf of the Est. of Lorenzo Munoz, and as N/F of CM, a Minor Child, Leslie Munoz, Virginia Munoz, Jessica Lopez, as N/F of AF and JL, Minor Children and Heirs to the Est. of Roger Franceware, Dec., Rosa Franceware, Ind.

This case addresses a wrongful death, survival, and exemplary damages suit following a fatal commercial motor vehicle accident. The beneficiaries of Lorenzo Munoz and Roger Franceware sued Moore Freight Services, Inc., Charles Strader, and XMEX Transports, L.L.C. After a jury verdict, the Court of Appeals reversed and rendered the judgment. The appellate court found legally insufficient evidence to establish proximate causation, concluding that the defendants' alleged negligence (regarding supervision, scheduling, or compliance) merely created conditions and was too attenuated from the driver inattention that caused the accident. Therefore, the Appellees take nothing against the Appellants.

Wrongful DeathSurvival ActionExemplary DamagesCommercial Motor Vehicle AccidentTrucking NegligenceProximate CauseLegal SufficiencyVicarious LiabilityNegligent SupervisionNegligent Hiring
References
53
Case No. ADJ603568 (MON 0359075)
Regular
Feb 22, 2013

COLEE PITCHFORD vs. TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION, CHARTIS

In Pitchford v. Trimac Transportation, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was primarily based on the petition's failure to comply with Labor Code section 5905, which mandates service on all adverse parties. The WCAB also noted that even if properly served, the petition would have been denied on its merits, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. Finally, the Board clarified that MJR Management Services, Inc. is not a party but an alleged representative, and their representation of a lien claimant lacked proper documentation in the EAMS.

Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5905Adverse partiesService deficiencyWorkers' compensation administrative law judgeReport and RecommendationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSLien claimantMJR Management Services
References
0
Case No. 2007-3856
Regular Panel Decision

FERNANDO GARCIA v. MVT Services, Inc.

The case involves Jesus Fernando Garcia and Maria de Lourdes Garcia (Plaintiffs) suing MVT Services, Inc. (Defendant) and other entities for the wrongful death of their son. The Plaintiffs initially filed in Texas state court, but the case was removed to federal court by MVT Services. The core issue is the timeliness of the removal by MVT Services. The Court found that MVT Services received "other paper" (a settlement agreement with the non-diverse defendant in October 2007 and a demand letter for $750,000) that made the case removable much earlier than its May 2008 removal. Consequently, the Defendant's removal was deemed untimely, and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand was granted, returning the case to state court. The request for attorneys' fees was denied.

Motion to RemandTimeliness of RemovalDiversity JurisdictionAmount in ControversyNon-diverse PartiesVoluntary Act of PlaintiffOther Paper RuleFederal Question JurisdictionState Court ActionWrongful Death
References
15
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. 06-14-00040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2015

Tillerd Ardean Smith, Medallion Transport & Logistics, LLC, Tomy Rushing D/B/A Rushing Transport Services, Inc. v. Brandi Williams

This post-argument letter brief, filed in the Sixth Court of Appeals, addresses several legal questions posed by justices during oral arguments held on April 1, 2015. The brief clarifies that spoliation findings and appropriate remedies are questions of law for the court, requiring a finding that lesser sanctions are insufficient before issuing a spoliation instruction. It also argues that defense counsel preserved objections to negligent hiring/training jury instructions despite not explicitly using "no-evidence," as the essence of the objection was the lack of evidentiary support. Furthermore, the brief discusses whether the plaintiff proved the defendant's employee status, asserting that the plaintiff's refusal to stipulate employment made it a fact issue requiring a jury question. Finally, it asserts that expert qualifications in personal injury cases are subject to the same rigorous standards as those in healthcare liability cases, countering the notion that a lower standard might apply to medical experts in personal injury matters.

spoliationnegligent supervisionnegligent hiringexpert witness testimonyappellate argumentslegal standard of carecausation analysisjury instructionsproportionate responsibility statuteemergency medical care liability
References
57
Showing 1-10 of 9,871 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