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. 01-08-00650-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2009

Troy J. Shuttleworth v. G & a Outsourcing, Inc. D/B/A G & a Partners

This case involves an appeal by Troy Shuttleworth, Questco, Inc., and U.S.A. Staffing, Inc. (the 'Shuttleworth Defendants') against G&A Outsourcing, Inc. d/b/a G&A Partners ('G&A') regarding a temporary injunction. G&A, a professional employer organization, sued Shuttleworth, a former sales representative, for breaching an employment agreement's non-compete/non-solicitation provision and misappropriating confidential information after he resigned to work for U.S.A. Staffing and Questco. G&A sought injunctive relief and damages in Harris County, while the Shuttleworth Defendants argued the Harris County trial court lacked jurisdiction, citing Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 65.023(a). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that section 65.023(a) did not apply because G&A's request for injunctive relief was ancillary to its claims for substantial damages arising from breach of contract and tortious acts. Thus, the temporary injunction entered by the trial court was upheld.

Non-compete agreementNon-solicitationTemporary injunctionBreach of contractMisappropriation of trade secretsTortious interferenceVenueJurisdictionTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeEmployment agreement
References
6
Case No. 11-05-00264-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2008

the Prudential Insurance Company of America and Four Partners, LLC D/B/A Prizm Partners and D/B/A United Commercial Property Services v. Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd., Francesco Secchi, and Jane Secchi

Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. (ICP), Francesco Secchi, and Jane Secchi (Appellees) sued The Prudential Insurance Company of America and Prizm Partners (Appellants) for various claims including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of warranty of suitability, related to a restaurant property lease with a persistent sewer gas odor. Prudential counterclaimed for unpaid rent and breach of personal guaranty. The trial court initially ruled in favor of ICP and the Secchis, awarding damages and attorney's fees, and denying Prudential's counterclaims. However, the appellate court reversed this decision. The court found that disclaimer and merger clauses in the lease negated reliance for fraud claims, and that the lease placed repair responsibilities, including for latent defects, on ICP, thus overriding the implied warranty of suitability. Consequently, the court rendered judgment that ICP and the Secchis take nothing on their claims and remanded the case for the trial court to determine damages and attorney's fees owed to Prudential on its counterclaims.

Commercial Lease DisputeFraudulent InducementNegligent MisrepresentationImplied Warranty of SuitabilityConstructive EvictionCovenant of Quiet EnjoymentContract InterpretationDisclaimer of RelianceMerger ClauseRatification
References
28
Case No. 94 Civ. 654 (MBM), 94 Civ. 2978 (MBM)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 1995

Bluebird Partners, LP v. First Fidelity Bank

Bluebird Partners, L.P., a secondary purchaser of equipment trust interests for Continental Airlines, sued indenture trustees and their law firms for alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA) and state law. Plaintiff claimed defendants failed to prudently protect certificate holders' interests during Continental's bankruptcy by not acting timely on adequate protection motions. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Bluebird Partners lacked standing as a secondary purchaser because federal TIA claims do not automatically transfer with the security. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that under federal common law, TIA claims do not automatically transfer to subsequent purchasers who were not injured at the time of the alleged wrongdoing, thus denying standing to Bluebird Partners. The court declined to retain jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims.

Trust Indenture ActStandingSecondary PurchaserSecurities LawBankruptcy CodeAutomatic StayAdequate ProtectionFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractNegligence
References
22
Case No. 13-07-031-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2007

in Re: SSP Partners

SSP Partners, a non-subscriber under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, sought a writ of mandamus after the trial court denied its motion to compel arbitration against Virginia Torres. Torres, an employee of Circle K (owned by SSP Partners), was injured off-duty and sued for negligence. SSP Partners argued a valid arbitration agreement covered the dispute, even for off-the-job injuries, and that Torres's defense of unconscionability applied to the entire agreement, not just the arbitration clause. The appellate court agreed with SSP Partners, concluding that Torres failed to raise a valid defense specifically against the arbitration clause itself. Consequently, the court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment LawUnconscionabilityWrit of MandamusFederal Arbitration ActTexas LawMotion to Compel ArbitrationOff-the-job InjuryProcedural ArbitrabilityContractual Defenses
References
21
Case No. 04-24-00757-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2026

Luckenbach Ranch, LLC and Firefly Partners, LLC D/B/A Firefly Partners Land, LLC v. Troy Bowling and Kim Bowling

This case involves an appeal by Luckenbach Ranch, LLC and Firefly Partners, LLC from a final judgment recognizing and defining a road easement in favor of Troy Bowling and Kim Bowling. The dispute originated from a 2019 private road maintenance agreement between Wendy Williams (seller of a portion of land to the Bowlings and later the remainder to Luckenbach) and the Bowlings. The appellants argued that the agreement violated the statute of frauds due to an insufficient description of the easement and that the scope of the easement was too narrow. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the agreement sufficiently identified the servient estate for the express easement and that the language 'access and maintain road entry for easement purposes' was sufficient to grant a road easement. The court also addressed the relocation of the easement's entrance, noting it was declared in the final judgment following a bench trial where Luckenbach stipulated to the move.

Easement LawStatute of FraudsExpress EasementEasement by EstoppelEstoppel by DeedProperty LawReal EstateSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRoad Easement
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NewMarkets Partners LLC v. Oppenheim

This Memorandum & Order addresses motions to dismiss in a case concerning false advertising under the Lanham Act and various state law claims. Plaintiffs, NewMarkets Partners LLC, CAM NewMarkets Partners LP, and Marie-Frances Mathes, allege that Defendants Sal. Oppenheim Jr. & CIE. S.C.A., CAM Private Equity Consulting & Verwaltungs GmbH, and BVT Beratungs-, Verwaltungsund Treuhandgesellsehaft für Internationale Vermorgensanlagen MBH, misused their proprietary investment model and names to market competing German funds. The court granted BVT-B's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It also dismissed the civil conspiracy claim against Oppenheim and CAM, and the unfair competition claim against Oppenheim. However, motions to dismiss the false advertising claim against Oppenheim and CAM, and the unjust enrichment claim against CAM were denied. The tortious interference claim against CAM was denied as moot due to an amended complaint.

Lanham ActFalse AdvertisingPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionUnfair CompetitionCivil ConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentJoint Venture AgreementPrivate Equity FundsExtraterritorial Jurisdiction
References
75
Case No. 13-15-00163-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2015

Hudson Insurance Company v. BVB Partners

This case originates from a dispute over the premium charged for a 2013 crop insurance policy issued by Hudson Insurance Company to BVB Partners. BVB Partners claims an overcharge of $25,000 due to alleged misinformation about a lower premium enterprise unit system. Hudson's motion to compel arbitration, citing a mandatory arbitration clause in the policy, was denied by the Trial Court. Hudson, as the appellant, argues that the Federal Arbitration Act governs the valid arbitration agreement, which covers BVB Partners' claim. Furthermore, Hudson asserts that BVB Partners received substantial benefits under the policy, invoking the doctrine of direct benefits estoppel. The appellant seeks a reversal of the Trial Court's decision and an order to compel arbitration.

arbitration agreementcrop insurancepremium disputeFederal Arbitration Actdirect benefits estoppelappealTexasHidalgo Countyinsurance policymotion to compel
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 1996

Velez v. Tishman Foley Partners

An ironworker, employed by Diamond International, Inc., was injured when a hoist tower's cross-bracing gave way. The plaintiff sued Universal Builders Supply, Inc. (who built the hoist tower), Tishman Foley Partners (owner/general contractor), and Glassalum International Corporation (a subcontractor). The Supreme Court modified a prior order, granting Universal's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against it. The court denied common-law indemnification for Tishman Foley Partners and Glassalum against Universal, but affirmed Tishman Foley Partners' contractual indemnification claim, noting that an owner's strict statutory liability does not preclude contractual indemnity without a showing of owner negligence.

Construction AccidentHoist TowerLabor LawIndemnificationSummary JudgmentSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorOwner LiabilityStrict LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnity
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt

The Vogts sued Marin Real Estate Partners and Trada Partners for easement encroachment, diversion of surface water, and malicious prosecution. A default judgment was entered against Trada Partners. A jury found in favor of the Vogts against Marin, awarding $1,691,372 in damages for loss of use of easement, surface water diversion, and malicious prosecution, along with injunctive relief. Marin appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, the award of injunctive relief, the admission of expert testimony, and the viability of judgment following a default. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting all nine of Marin's issues, including arguments on double recovery and the effect of the default judgment.

Easement DisputeWater DiversionMalicious ProsecutionProperty DamageInjunctive ReliefExpert WitnessSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ProcedureCivil LitigationReal Estate Law
References
84
Case No. WCK 0031401, WCK 0031404, WCK 0057363, WCK 0062663
Regular
Mar 11, 2008

Sally Sterns vs. SAFEWAY, INC., VENTURI STAFFING PARTNERS, INCJABAR STAFFING AGENCY, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case concerns an applicant's request for reconsideration of a prior decision that deferred her permanent disability award pending Supreme Court rulings on apportionment and the *Wilkinson* doctrine. The Appeals Board, having reviewed the matter, now returns it to the trial level. The WCJ is instructed to issue a new final decision on all outstanding issues, given the intervening Supreme Court and Appeals Board decisions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSally SternsSafeway Inc.Venturi Staffing PartnersSpecialty Risk ServicesOpinion and Decision After Reconsiderationpermanent disabilityapportionmentBrodieWelcher
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 729 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