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. 12-13-00175-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2015

Guy Sparkman v. Microsoft Corporation, SupportSpace, Inc. as Agent for Microsoft Corp., Omar Franco, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Robert Doe, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Karen Phillips

Guy Sparkman appealed the trial court's dismissal of his lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation and others. Sparkman alleged that Microsoft's representatives remotely accessed his computer and caused issues, which he believed was part of a scheme to coerce him into purchasing updated software. He filed a suit based on breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The trial court declared Sparkman a vexatious litigant and dismissed his suit for failing to furnish a required $7,500 security. On appeal, Sparkman raised six issues, including challenges to judicial authority and bias, the constitutionality of the vexatious litigant statute, and due process. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling all of Sparkman's arguments.

Vexatious LitigantDismissalAppealConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionJudicial RecusalJudicial AuthorityPro Se Litigant
References
30
Case No. MDL 381
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation

Defendants, manufacturers of Agent Orange, brought third-party actions against the United States government seeking indemnity and contribution for settlement payments made to veterans' wives and children. The government moved to dismiss these claims. The court reiterated that previous direct claims against the government by veterans, wives, and children were dismissed either by the Feres doctrine or for failure to prove a causal connection. The third-party plaintiffs and defendants concurred that Agent Orange causation could not be established with available evidence. Consequently, the court granted the government's motion, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act precludes recovery without government misfeasance, and dismissed all third-party claims against the government, along with any existing government claims against other parties.

Agent OrangeProduct LiabilityThird Party ActionIndemnityContributionFederal Tort Claims ActFeres DoctrineCausationMilitary VeteransClass Action Settlement
References
12
Case No. NO. 02-12-00517-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) v. Agent Systems, Inc.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the T) appealed a jury verdict in favor of Agent Systems, Inc. The core dispute involved a contract for validating fareboxes, which DART and the T eventually ceased work on, leading Agent Systems to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and later sue for damages under a termination for convenience clause. The appellate court reviewed issues regarding the standard of review, jury charge, sufficiency of evidence, and the award of prejudgment and postjudgment interest. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits, finding sufficient evidence that DART and the T breached the contract by improperly terminating it for default instead of for convenience. However, the court reversed and remanded for a recalculation of prejudgment and postjudgment interest, adjusting the rate from six to five percent and requiring the trial court to redetermine the accrual date.

Breach of ContractGovernment ContractTermination for ConvenienceTermination for DefaultJury Verdict ReviewSufficiency of EvidencePrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestContractual DisputeAdministrative Remedies
References
35
Case No. 82-0021
Regular Panel Decision

Fraticelli v. Dow Chemical Co.

The case involves three civilian employees (Fraticelli, Oshita, Takatsuki) of the University of Hawaii who sued manufacturers of Agent Orange, the US, and the University's former Regents, alleging harm from exposure to Agent Orange in 1966-67. The plaintiffs developed various illnesses, which they attributed to Agent Orange exposure. The court denied class certification and found that claims against the chemical companies and former Regents were barred by Hawaii's two-year statute of limitations and, for the Regents, by the receipt of workers' compensation. Crucially, the court found no admissible evidence that Agent Orange caused the plaintiffs' illnesses, citing issues with expert testimony and the presence of other risk factors. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

Agent OrangeHerbicide ExposureToxic ChemicalsProduct LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationCausation DefenseSummary JudgmentClass Action DenialFederal Tort Claims Act
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hearn v. Internal Revenue Agents

This case involves a Texas corporation (Worldwide Capital Management, Inc. - WCM) and two Texas residents (Hearn and Williams) suing agents and employees of the IRS for alleged constitutional violations stemming from a search and seizure of WCM's offices in May 1984. Plaintiffs initially sought injunctive relief and later amended their complaint to seek damages under various constitutional tort theories, including claims under the Fourth, First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. The court had previously ruled that the search itself was conducted in a reasonable and lawful manner. Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity for the agents and lack of standing for the individual plaintiffs. The court dismissed claims against specific named defendants (Kurtz, Cagle, Lawrence, Hernandez) and WCM's Fourth Amendment claims due to insufficient allegations to overcome the assertion of qualified immunity. Furthermore, the court found that Hearn and Williams, as independent contractors, lacked standing to assert Fourth Amendment claims because they did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in WCM's business premises. Finally, all three plaintiffs' claims under the First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments were dismissed for lacking either a factual or legal basis. Consequently, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

Fourth AmendmentQualified ImmunityStanding DoctrineIndependent Contractor StatusIRS AgentsSearch and SeizureBivens ActionFirst Amendment RightsFifth Amendment Due ProcessNinth Amendment Claims
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wessel v. Sichel

Plaintiff tenant sued defendant landlord and their agents for damages, alleging his apartment was rendered uninhabitable during repairs, items were stolen, and he was constructively evicted in retaliation for a prior rent reduction. Defendants counterclaimed and moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff requested repairs, then impeded work by changing locks and withholding rent. The trial court denied the motion, citing questions of retaliatory intent. The Appellate Division reversed, finding plaintiff's claims conclusory and lacking material evidence. The court granted summary judgment to defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Summary JudgmentConstructive EvictionRetaliationTenant RightsLandlord-Tenant DisputeAppellate ReviewConclusory EvidenceBurden of ProofDismissalApartment Repairs
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Agents Insurance Co. v. Arredondo

General Agents Insurance Company of America (GAINSCO) appealed a summary judgment that declared it had a duty to defend and indemnify Robert C. Arredondo in a personal injury lawsuit brought by Rafael Saenz. Saenz was injured while working for Agency Services, a subcontractor of Arredondo's business, United Erectors. GAINSCO argued that an exclusion in Arredondo's commercial general liability policy for injuries arising from subcontractor operations precluded coverage. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the "arising out of" language in the exclusion unambiguously excluded coverage due to the causal relationship with the subcontractor's operations. The case was remanded to the trial court for a determination of attorney's fees.

Insurance CoverageSubcontractor ExclusionDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyNegligenceSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentCausal ConnectionArising Out OfTexas Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 1999

Halloran v. Minnesota Old Northwest Agents, Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Barbara Halloran filed suit against her employer, Old Northwest Agents (ONA), alleging age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Halloran claimed she was subjected to harassment by co-workers and that her eventual termination was motivated by age discrimination and in retaliation for protected activities. ONA contended that her termination was part of a legitimate nationwide reduction in force that eliminated her Field Service Representative position. The Court found that Halloran failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for either age-based harassment or discriminatory termination. Consequently, the Court granted ONA's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the matter.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentReduction in ForceADEAEmployment LawDiscriminatory TerminationPrima Facie CaseSixth Circuit
References
28
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

Swiatkowski v. Citibank

Plaintiff Lidia Swiatkowski sued Citibank, Citigroup, Citimortgage, and CMI Servicing Agent, alleging violations of constitutional rights and RICO in connection with a foreclosure action on her property. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that the federal claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, collateral estoppel, and res judicata, as Swiatkowski's claims largely sought to challenge and overturn prior state and bankruptcy court judgments. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. Defendants' request for sanctions was denied, with a warning to the plaintiff against future duplicative filings.

Rooker-Feldman DoctrineCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataForeclosure ActionBankruptcy ProceedingsCivil Rights ViolationsRICO ClaimsFraudulent DocumentsMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
84
Showing 1-10 of 721 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