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. 04-14-00657-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

Richard Leshin, Successor Trustee of the Davila Family Trust, Trust A v. Juan Gerardo Oliva, Rosina Oliva, Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Davila Family Trusts B, C, and D, and Alma Guadalupe Davila

A party who seeks to vacate an arbitration award bears the burden in the trial court of bringing forth a complete record that establishes its basis for vacating the award. Leshin has completely failed to carry his burden because he has come forth only with a partial record. Leshin has not brought forth a record showing that he was not brought into arbitration in a manner that would render him individually liable. For this reason alone, the trial court was correct in confirming the arbitrator’s award. In any case, the matters in the record clearly establish that the arbitrator was well within his power to determine that Leshin was individually liable for his wrongful acts. The AAA Commercial Rules of Arbitration, which apply to this matter, provide that the arbitrator had the power to rule on his own jurisdiction, 'including any objections with respect to the . . . scope . . . of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.' Finally, the Texas Trust Code is clear that a trustee is always individually liable for his wrongful acts committed as trustee, so it was not necessary to sue Leshin in any particular capacity.

ArbitrationTrustee LiabilityTrust DisputeArbitration AwardAppellate ReviewJurisdictionArbitrabilityTexas LawCommercial Arbitration RulesDavila Family Trust
References
26
Case No. 03-01-00187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2002

Power Resource Group, Inc. v. Public Utility Commisison of Texas and Texas-New Mexico Power Company

This appeal concerns Power Resource Group, Inc.'s challenge to the Public Utility Commission of Texas's interpretation of rule 23.66, which governs the obligation of electric utilities to purchase energy and capacity from qualifying facilities (QFs). Power Resource argued that utilities must contract with QFs within 90 days of notification, irrespective of the QF's ability to deliver power within that period. The Commission asserted that a legally enforceable obligation only arises if the QF can provide energy within 90 days. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the Commission's interpretation as reasonable and not preempted by federal law, and denied Power Resource's contract and fraud claims against Texas-New Mexico Power Company.

Public Utility CommissionElectric UtilitiesQualifying Facilities (QF)PURPAEnergy Purchase ObligationAdministrative Rule InterpretationStatutory InterpretationContract LawFraud ClaimsSummary Judgment
References
39
Case No. 07-03-0307-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2005

Mabel Walter Rogers, Larry Frank Walter, Co-Trustee, Robert Wayne Veigel, Co-Trustee, Dorothy Ann Veigel Oswald and Jo Ann Veigel Eudy v. in Re: Ardella Veigel Inter Vivos Trust No. 2, Amarillo National Bank, Amarillo, Texas, Co-Trustee

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Amarillo National Bank (ANB) concerning various estates, trusts, and management agreements. The primary appellant, Robert Wayne Veigel (R.W.), contended that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, preventing him from pursuing counterclaims and requesting an accounting. R.W. argued that interests bequeathed by Charles R. Veigel were life estates, not trust interests, and challenged ANB's trustee fees and the lack of an accounting. The appellate court modified the summary judgment to declare that Charles Veigel's will granted life estates free of trust but affirmed the summary judgment regarding the statute of limitations barring R.W.'s claims for disgorgement of fees, accounting, and damages.

Trust LawLife EstatesStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyAccountingInter Vivos TrustTestamentary TrustProperty CodeCivil Practice and Remedies Code
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sosa v. Central Power & Light Co.

The Sosas sued Central Power & Light, Houston Power & Light, and General Electric for the wrongful death of Mr. Sosa, alleging liver disease from toxic chemical exposure in the early 1970s. Mr. Sosa died on June 1, 1991, and the Sosas filed suit on June 1, 1993. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, arguing the Sosas' First Amended Original Petition's allegations showed Mr. Sosa was incapacitated for twenty years, implying knowledge of injury. The Sosas attempted to file a Second Amended Original Petition without leave of court to invoke the discovery rule, but it was struck as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the Second Amended Original Petition was untimely, leave to file was properly denied, the First Amended Original Petition's allegations constituted judicial admissions, and thus, the limitations defense barred the claim as Mr. Sosa was aware of his injuries more than four years prior to his death.

Wrongful DeathStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAmended PleadingDiscovery RuleJudicial AdmissionsToxic ExposureLiver DiseaseAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
24
Case No. E2015-02226-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2016

Sandra Clark v. Christopher Powers

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether an automobile accident claim was barred by the statute of limitations due to non-compliance with service of process rules. Plaintiffs, Sandra and Sandy Clark, and defendant Christopher Powers's insurer, The General, had an agreement to defer service during settlement talks. Powers's underinsured motorist carrier, Allstate, later 'fronted' The General's policy limit to protect its subrogation rights. After the limitations period, Powers and Allstate moved for dismissal, but the trial court denied summary judgment based on equitable estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the denial, concluding that the agreement to forbear service was valid and ongoing, thus excusing the lack of formal service on Powers at the time the motion was filed.

Automobile AccidentStatute of LimitationsService of ProcessEquitable EstoppelSettlement NegotiationsUnderinsured Motorist CoverageSubrogation RightsSummary JudgmentInterlocutory AppealTennessee Rules of Civil Procedure
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Powers v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Steve Powers, a former television reporter, initiated an age discrimination lawsuit against Fox Television Stations, Inc. following his employment termination in 1992, citing violations of New York State and City human rights laws. Fox subsequently removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration, referencing an arbitration clause within Powers' 1992 employment agreement, and to stay the ongoing action. Powers contended that his employment contract was exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and that his claims fell outside the arbitration clause's scope. The court, relying on Second Circuit precedents, disagreed with Powers' interpretation, concluding that the FAA's employment contract exclusion was limited to the transportation industry and that the broadly worded arbitration clause encompassed the dispute. Consequently, the court granted Fox's motions, compelling arbitration and staying the civil action.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract LawStatutory InterpretationMotion to CompelStay of ProceedingsSecond Circuit PrecedentNew York Human Rights LawArbitration Clause Scope
References
12
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06425 [131 AD3d 461]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2015

Power v. Frasier

Joseph Power, an employee of the New York City Transit Authority, and his wife, sought damages for personal injuries sustained when Power was struck by a vehicle driven by coemployee John Frasier in a parking lot. Power had received workers' compensation benefits for his injuries. The defendants, John Frasier and his father Edward M. Frasier, moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court granted their motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the Workers' Compensation Law provides an exclusive remedy when both parties are coemployees acting within the scope of their employment. Since John Frasier was found to be acting within the scope of his employment, he was immune from direct liability, and his father could not be held vicariously liable.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusivity ProvisionsCoemployee ImmunitySummary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentParking Lot AccidentAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
15
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09262 [178 AD3d 1036]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2019

Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn. v. Board of Trustees of the Mount Vernon Pub. Lib.

The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated a proceeding against the Board of Trustees of the Mount Vernon Public Library after an arbitrator's decision in a salary dispute. The arbitrator found that the Board violated a pay parity provision in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and awarded a retroactive salary increase, but controversially conditioned this upon the excision of the pay parity provision from the CBA. CSEA successfully petitioned the Supreme Court, Westchester County, to vacate this condition and remitted the matter for further proceedings. The Board appealed, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's amended judgment, concluding that the arbitrator exceeded his power by attempting to rewrite the parties' contract. The case was remitted to a different arbitrator for a new hearing on the manner and timing of parity payments.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementPay Parity ProvisionJudicial Review of ArbitrationArbitrator's AuthorityExceeding PowerVacatur of AwardSalary InequalityLabor UnionPublic Library
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Central Power and Light Co. v. Sharp

Central Power and Light (CP&L) appealed a summary judgment concerning the Comptroller's interpretation of the Franchise Tax Act, specifically regarding the computation of a company's surplus. The core of the dispute involved CP&L's capitalization of Allowance for Funds Used During Construction-equity (AFUDC-equity) for its nuclear power plant, which it argued should not be capitalized for franchise tax purposes, leading to a three-million-dollar refund claim. CP&L contended that the Comptroller's interpretation resulted in unequal taxation, resurrected an unconstitutional 'books and records' rule, and constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding a rational basis for the disparate tax treatment between regulated and non-regulated entities due to regulated utilities' assurance of recovering AFUDC-equity through rate-making. The court also rejected CP&L's 'books and records' and delegation arguments, the latter on jurisdictional grounds.

Franchise Tax ActTax ClassificationRegulated UtilitiesAFUDC-equityCapitalizationAccounting PrinciplesConstitutional LawDelegation of PowerSummary JudgmentTax Refund
References
21
Case No. 03-08-00472-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2009

Patricia Ann Powers v. Fremont Industrial Indemnity Company C/O TPCIGA Carrier

Patricia Ann Powers appealed the dismissal of her worker's compensation benefits suit, which was sanctioned for discovery abuse by the trial court. The trial court found Powers demonstrated "continuing and flagrant bad faith" by failing to accept discovery notices and court orders, and repeatedly not appearing for scheduled depositions, despite being warned of potential dismissal. Powers asserted that the appellee also committed discovery abuse and that the trial court was biased. The Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the trial court acted within its sound discretion in dismissing the lawsuit due to Powers's refusal to participate in the normal legal process she initiated.

Discovery AbuseDismissal SanctionWorker's CompensationPro Se LitigantFailure to AppearCourt OrdersAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionMemorandum OpinionCivil Procedure
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,366 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