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. 03-02-00403-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2003

Randy Pretzer Scott Bossier Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. D/B/A Bossier Country v. the Motor Vehicle Board and Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation

This case involves an appeal concerning sanctions imposed by the Motor Vehicle Board against Randy Pretzer, Scott Bossier, and Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. (collectively "Bossier") for violations of the Texas Motor Vehicle Code, specifically fraudulent practices that led to $180,000 in civil penalties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's authority to sanction non-licensees for new vehicle sales violations under section 4.06(a)(5). However, it reversed the district court's finding of Board jurisdiction over used vehicle sales violations of section 4.06(a)(5) occurring before June 8, 1995. Additionally, the Court reversed the Board's power to prospectively limit Pretzer's employment in the motor vehicle industry. The case was remanded to the district court for redetermination of civil penalties consistent with the opinion, while Bossier's other arguments regarding notice, standard of proof, and constitutional challenges were overruled.

Motor Vehicle Code ViolationsFraudulent PracticesCivil PenaltiesStatutory AuthorityAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUsed Vehicle SalesNew Vehicle SalesLicense RevocationDue Process
References
49
Case No. 13-13-00596-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2014

Angela Jo Carter v. Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

This case involves an appeal by Angela Jo Carter in a Texas Whistleblower Act claim against the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (TDMV). Carter alleged that her termination was retaliatory after she reported perceived irregularities and violations of law within TDMV. The trial court had granted TDMV's plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment, determining that Carter failed to report a good faith belief of a law violation to an appropriate law enforcement authority prior to her dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Carter's internal complaints did not constitute reports of law violations under the Act, and her external reports occurred after she was notified of her termination, thus failing to establish causation for retaliation.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationPublic EmployeeSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionSummary JudgmentGood Faith ReportLaw Enforcement AuthorityTerminationTexas Government Code
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pretzer v. Motor Vehicle Board

This case concerns an appeal by Randy Pretzer, Scott Bossier, and Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. d/b/a Bossier Country (collectively, "Bossier") against sanctions imposed by the Motor Vehicle Board and Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation ("Board"). The Board had imposed civil penalties for violations of sections 4.06(a)(5) and 4.06(a)(6) of the Texas Motor Vehicle Code. The district court affirmed in part, overruled in part, and reversed and remanded in part the Board's final order. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment in part, reversed and rendered in part concerning the Board's power to bar Pretzer from the motor vehicle industry, and remanded the cause for further proceedings regarding the redetermination of civil penalties based on the correct jurisdictional scope of section 4.06(a)(5) for used vehicle sales before June 8, 1995.

Texas Motor Vehicle CodeStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawCivil PenaltiesFraudulent PracticesDealer LicensingNon-licensee SanctionsUsed Vehicle SalesSubstantial Evidence ReviewEqual Protection
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2003

Yanulavich v. Appeals Board of Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

The petitioner appealed the dismissal of his CPLR article 78 proceeding, which challenged the Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) revocation of his driver's license. The revocation stemmed from an incident where the petitioner, who reported vision issues due to diabetes, struck a flag person. After failing initial vision tests and subsequently passing with corrective lenses, the petitioner failed a road test, leading to the license revocation. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the DMV had reasonable grounds, based on the accident, the petitioner's statement, and his physician's report, to require a road test, thus supporting the revocation.

driver's licenselicense revocationvision impairmentdiabetesroad test failureadministrative appealCPLR Article 78Vehicle and Traffic Lawreasonable groundsmotor vehicle accident
References
2
Case No. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Head v. U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc.

Jacqueline Head contracted with Affordable Inspections for a home inspection. She alleged that an unsupervised apprentice performed the inspection, failing to disclose significant water damage and structural defects. Head sued Affordable and John Fox (the inspector) under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, unconscionability, and breach of express warranty, as well as for breach of contract and negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for Affordable and Fox, applying the professional services exemption to DTPA claims and limiting liability for contract and negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on DTPA claims for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, and unconscionability, and upheld the limitation of liability for breach of contract and negligence. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Head's DTPA claim for breach of express warranty, finding a fact issue regarding the promise of a licensed inspector performing the inspection. Consequently, the award of attorneys' fees to Affordable and Fox was also reversed and remanded.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActProfessional Services ExemptionBreach of ContractNegligenceLimitation of LiabilityExpress WarrantySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewReal Estate InspectionHome Inspector
References
50
Case No. 03-21-00239-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

Star Houston, Inc.// Cross-Appellant,Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC, and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles// Star Houston, Inc., and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

Star Houston, Inc. and Volvo Car USA, LLC appealed a Final Order of the Motor Vehicle Board. The administrative proceeding involved Star protesting Volvo's termination of its franchise and alleging violations of Occupations Code chapter 2301 by Volvo's Dealer Incentive Programs. Star and Volvo petitioned for judicial review, which was subsequently removed to the Court of Appeals. The court rejected the Board's standing challenge against Volvo's cross-appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusions that Volvo's CSI and SSI programs violated Occupations Code sections 2301.467(a)(1) and 2301.468, upholding that they required adherence to unreasonable sales/service standards and treated dealers unfairly. Additionally, the court rejected Star's claims that other incentive programs violated various statutory provisions. Ultimately, the Motor Vehicle Board's Final Order was affirmed.

Texas Court of AppealsMotor Vehicle BoardFranchise TerminationDealer Incentive ProgramsOccupations CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandingSubstantial Evidence RuleCustomer Satisfaction Index (CSI)
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Love v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co.

The case involves David and Latusha Love's lawsuit against Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company for the wrongful denial of their homeowners insurance claim. The denial was based on alleged material post-loss misrepresentations and a civil arson defense after a fire damaged their home. Allstate moved for summary judgment, arguing their policy was voided. The court denied Allstate's motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding Mr. Love's intent to deceive and whether the fire was incendiary in origin, citing conflicting evidence from fire reports and expert opinions.

Homeowners InsuranceInsurance Claim DenialSummary Judgment MotionMaterial MisrepresentationIntent to DeceiveCivil Arson DefenseIncendiary Fire OriginCircumstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationJury Question
References
17
Case No. 08-18-00165-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2021

Texas Department of Motor Vehicles v. Geraldine Bustillos

Geraldine Bustillos sued the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, in violation of chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code. The DMV filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that Bustillos failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation or rebut its legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's denial of the plea de novo, concluding that while Bustillos demonstrated temporal proximity between her injury report and termination, she failed to establish a material fact issue regarding pretext or 'but-for' causation. The court found Bustillos's denials of misconduct and claims of inadequate training insufficient to prove retaliatory motive. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, dismissing Bustillos's retaliation claim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationRetaliation ClaimSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Labor CodeEmployment DiscriminationCausal LinkPretextAppellate ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
37
Case No. 2-03-152-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2005

Jacqueline C. Head, Individually and as Successor Trustee Under the FTW Living Trust v. U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc. F/K/A Affordable Inspections, Inc. and John Fox

Jacqueline Head appealed a summary judgment in favor of U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc. and John Fox. Head argued that her DTPA claims were wrongly barred by a professional services exemption, and a limitation of liability clause should not apply to her breach of contract and negligence claims. The Court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Head's DTPA claims for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, and unconscionability, along with her negligence and breach of contract claims. However, the Court reversed the summary judgment concerning Head's claim for breach of express warranty under the DTPA and the award of attorneys' fees, remanding these specific issues to the trial court for further proceedings.

Real Estate InspectionSummary JudgmentDeceptive Trade Practices ActProfessional Services ExemptionLimitation of LiabilityBreach of ContractNegligenceExpress WarrantyUnconscionabilityAttorneys' Fees
References
52
Showing 1-10 of 6,949 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