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. NO . 10-0781
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2012

U-Haul International, Inc. D/B/A U-Haul, U-Haul Co. of Texas, Inc. D/B/A U-Haul of Dallas, and East Fork Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A Jot 'Em Down, Inc. v. Talmadge Waldrip, Bernice Waldrip, Dinah Simington, and Anne Waldrip-Boyd

Talmadge Waldrip was seriously injured in an accident involving a U-Haul truck and sued U-Haul entities for negligence and gross negligence, alleging systematic poor inspection and repair practices. A jury found U-Haul negligent and grossly negligent, awarding approximately $45 million in damages. The court of appeals reversed the exemplary damages award against UHI but affirmed in other respects. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case, addressing the sufficiency of evidence and the admissibility of 'Canadian evidence.' The Court determined that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the 'Canadian evidence,' which likely led to an improper verdict. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered a take-nothing judgment on the gross-negligence claims against UHI and UHT, and remanded the negligence claims against all defendants for a new trial.

NegligenceGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesProduct LiabilityVehicle MaintenanceParking Brake FailureTransmission MalfunctionImproper InspectionReckless Hiring
References
28
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00066 [179 AD3d 427]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2020

Matter of Katherine U. (Jose U.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order finding Jose U. sexually abused his child, Katherine U., and dismissed the appeal from the fact-finding order. The court upheld the use of closed-circuit television for the child's testimony, balancing the father's due process rights with the child's emotional well-being, as contemporaneous cross-examination by counsel was permitted. An affidavit from the child's social worker sufficiently established that in-court testimony would cause emotional harm. Furthermore, Jose U.'s prior criminal convictions for predatory sexual assault, rape, incest, and sexual abuse, involving the child, collaterally estopped him from contesting the abuse allegations in the family court petition.

Child abuseSexual abuseFamily LawAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessChild TestimonyClosed-circuit televisionCollateral EstoppelCriminal ConvictionEvidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05774
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2017

Matter of Jessica U. (Stephanie U.)

The Chemung County Department of Social Services initiated proceedings to terminate Stephanie U.'s parental rights, alleging permanent neglect of her six children. Following a lengthy fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found five children permanently neglected, returned the oldest to the mother's care, ordered a one-year suspended judgment for two, and terminated parental rights for the three youngest children. Stephanie U. appealed this decision, challenging both the finding of permanent neglect and the termination of parental rights. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the Department had made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship and that the mother had failed to adequately plan for her children's future. The court also determined that the termination of parental rights for the three youngest children was in their best interests, noting their stability in preadoptive homes.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationDiligent EffortsChild CustodyFamily LawAppellate ReviewBest Interests of ChildrenFoster CareSuspended JudgmentSocial Services
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1999

Baby U. v. Teresea U.

This case involves an appeal concerning the adoption of 'Baby U.' Petitioners sought to adopt, but respondents (the birth parents, Teresea U. and Paul E.) subsequently revoked their extrajudicial consents. Respondents alleged the consents were invalid due to lack of adequate representation and a misunderstanding of their revocability. The Family Court initially found the consents invalid and ordered petitioners to pay respondents' legal expenses. On appeal, the higher court reversed the findings regarding the invalidity of the consents, determining there was competent representation and no fraud, coercion, or duress. It also reversed the orders requiring petitioners to bear respondents' litigation costs. While affirming certain discovery and visitation orders, the matter was ultimately remanded for a best interests hearing for Baby U. before a different Family Court Judge, with an emphasis on the child's right to a Law Guardian.

Adoption LawParental ConsentChild WelfareAppellate ProcedureAttorney's FeesBest Interests of ChildFamily CourtLegal EthicsRevocation of ConsentInterstate Adoption
References
3
Case No. 14-18-01059-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Rose A. Munguia, as Next Friend of E.S.U., a Minor and J.M.U., a Minor v. Justrod, Inc.

In this appeal, Rose A. Munguia, as next friend of minor children E.S.U. and J.M.U., challenges the trial court’s grant of summary judgment favoring Justrod, Inc. in a wrongful death action. Jose Ucles, the deceased, was working for Justrod as a framer when he fell to his death. Ucles was covered by worker’s compensation insurance. Munguia filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful death and gross negligence. Justrod filed both a no-evidence motion for summary judgment and a traditional motion for summary judgment, which were granted by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the judgment because Munguia failed to challenge all the grounds on which the summary judgment could have been based.

Summary JudgmentWrongful DeathGross NegligenceWorker's Compensation ActExclusive RemedyAppellate ProcedureChallenge All GroundsNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentTraditional Summary JudgmentFramer Accident
References
13
Case No. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. In re U.S. Air Duct Corporation
Regular Panel Decision

Mazur v. U. S. Air Duct Corp. (In Re U. S. Air Duct Corp.)

The case involves the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local No. 58 (the Association) seeking to recover fringe benefits and wage supplement contributions from U.S. Air Duct Corporation (the Debtor) and its president, Franklin E. Bean (the Non-Debtor). The Association initiated an action in New York Supreme Court, which was subsequently stayed when the Debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Non-Debtor removed the state-court proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court, prompting the Association to move for its remand. The Bankruptcy Court denied the Association's motion, asserting jurisdiction over the claim against the Non-Debtor based on its relation to the Title 11 case and the joint and several liability under New York Labor Law Section 198-c. The court also affirmed the permissibility of removal by "any party" under 28 U.S.C. 1478(a).

BankruptcyChapter 7RemovalRemandJurisdictionLabor LawFringe BenefitsWage SupplementsCorporate Officer LiabilityJoint and Several Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

Royal Park Investments SA/NV sued U.S. Bank National Association regarding residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). U.S. Bank moved to dismiss the action or disqualify Royal Park as class representative due to Royal Park's failure to produce documents from its assignors. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, found Royal Park's non-compliance willful but denied U.S. Bank's motion for sanctions and disqualification. The court reasoned that U.S. Bank had not yet demonstrated sufficient prejudice to warrant such severe sanctions, indicating that dismissal would be 'unnecessarily draconian'. The motion was denied without prejudice, allowing U.S. Bank to renew its application if prejudice could be shown.

Discovery SanctionsWillfulnessPrejudiceClass ActionRMBS LitigationTrust Indenture ActBreach of ContractBreach of TrustAssignor DocumentsStanding
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Lawns, Inc. v. Castillo

U.S. Lawns, Inc. (Appellant) filed an interlocutory appeal challenging a trial court order that denied its motion to compel arbitration against Rodolfo Castillo Jr. and Yadira Ivette Arroyo (Appellees). The underlying suit stemmed from severe neurological injuries Castillo sustained in a lawnmower accident while employed by Blue Green Services, L.P. Appellees subsequently filed a personal injury and loss of consortium suit, later naming U.S. Lawns as an additional defendant. U.S. Lawns moved to compel arbitration, claiming Castillo was bound by an arbitration agreement, but the trial court denied this motion without specifying its grounds. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that U.S. Lawns waived its appeal by failing to challenge all possible independent grounds for the trial court's general order, specifically the argument that U.S. Lawns had waived its right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process.

arbitration agreementmotion to compelinterlocutory appealwaiver of arbitrationjudicial processappellate procedureabuse of discretionpersonal injuryTexas Court of Appealscivil remedies
References
24
Case No. 13-10-00669-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2011

U.S. Lawns, Inc. v. Rodolfo Luis Castillo Jr. and Yadira Ivette Arroyo

Rodolfo Luis Castillo Jr. was severely injured while employed by Blue Green Services, L.P., becoming a paraplegic. He and Yadira Ivette Arroyo filed a personal injury suit, later adding U.S. Lawns, Inc. as a defendant. U.S. Lawns moved to compel arbitration, claiming an existing agreement with Castillo, but the trial court denied the motion. U.S. Lawns appealed this denial, arguing the trial court erred. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that U.S. Lawns failed to challenge all possible grounds for the denial, including the argument that U.S. Lawns had waived its right to arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementMotion to Compel ArbitrationWaiver of ArbitrationInterlocutory AppealAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil PracticePersonal InjuryEmployment InjuryFederal Arbitration Act
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 1,825 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