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. 08-15-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2016

in Re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.P., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC

Blanca Calderon filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart, alleging wrongful termination due to age discrimination or a worker's compensation claim. Following discovery disputes, the trial court, presided over by Judge Luis Aguilar, granted Calderon's motion to compel and denied Wal-Mart's motion for a protective order. Subsequently, Wal-Mart was found in contempt for non-compliance with discovery orders and assessed significant fines and attorney's fees. Wal-Mart petitioned for a writ of mandamus, challenging the contempt findings on grounds of inadequate notice and arguing that the discovery orders were overbroad. The Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief, vacating the contempt orders due to insufficient notice and ordering the return of paid fines, but affirmed the trial court's discovery order and sanctions related to attorney's fees.

MandamusContempt OrderDiscovery AbuseProtective Order DenialMonetary SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionInadequate NoticeCriminal ContemptProcedural Due ProcessTexas Court of Appeals
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Calvasina v. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust

Peter Calvasina, an employee leased by Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. to Wal-Mart Stores, Texas, LLC, sustained severe injuries after falling from a tire rack at a Wal-Mart store in San Antonio, Texas. He filed a negligence claim against Wal-Mart Stores, Texas, LLC and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., alleging failure to provide a safe workplace. The District Court considered the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The motion was denied for Wal-Mart Stores, Texas, LLC concerning the premises defect claim, as a fact issue was found regarding its potential duty. However, the motion was granted for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., as the Plaintiff failed to establish that the Corporation owed a duty of care.

NegligencePremises LiabilityDuty of CareIndependent ContractorRetained ControlSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyTire Rack AccidentTexas LawWal-Mart
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff Tina Richey filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C., alleging she was terminated for refusing to participate in an illegal scheme to defraud vendors. Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, contending there was insufficient evidence for Richey's Sabine Pilot claim, which requires proving she was discharged solely for refusing to commit a criminal act. The court denied Wal-Mart's motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Richey was indeed discharged, if her refusal was the sole reason, and if there was actual malice to support punitive damages. Additionally, the court ruled that Richey's prior EEOC charge, mentioning sexual harassment, did not serve as a judicial admission to bar her Sabine Pilot claim. Consequently, the case will proceed to trial, as sufficient evidence exists for a jury to decide the claims.

Wrongful DischargeSabine Pilot ExceptionEmployment At Will DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionFraud AllegationsPunitive DamagesJudicial AdmissionsEEOC ChargePretext for TerminationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
9
Case No. 08-05-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2006

Cruz Santillan v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cruz Santillan, an overnight stocker at Wal-Mart, was injured on the job and filed a worker's compensation claim. She was subsequently terminated for failing to timely re-verify her employment authorization documents (EADs) as required by the Federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) and Wal-Mart's company policy. Santillan sued Wal-Mart for wrongful discharge, alleging that her termination was discriminatory due to her worker's compensation claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, finding that the company provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Santillan failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that Wal-Mart's stated reason was a pretext for retaliation.

Wrongful DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimSummary JudgmentEmployment Authorization Documents (EAD)Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)Employment TerminationRetaliationPretextCausal ConnectionNon-Discriminatory Reason
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Planning Board

Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit and site plan approval in the Town of North Elba for a retail store. Respondent, the Planning Board, denied the application, citing adverse visual impact, effects on community character, and non-compliance with the Town Land Use Code after a SEQRA review and public hearing. Wal-Mart challenged this denial as arbitrary, capricious, and lacking substantial evidence, also alleging Open Meetings Law violations. The Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division retained jurisdiction, applying a rationality standard, and ultimately confirmed the Planning Board's determination, dismissing Wal-Mart's petition.

Conditional Use PermitSite Plan ApprovalState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning BoardJudicial ReviewRationality StandardAesthetic ImpactCommunity CharacterTown Land Use CodeOpen Meetings Law
References
18
Case No. CA 15-01862
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2016

WELLSVILLE CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBL v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed a lower court's judgment denying a petition from Wellsville Citizens for Responsible Development, Inc. The petitioner sought to annul a negative declaration issued by the Town Board of Wellsville regarding a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter, citing violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found that the Town Board failed to conduct a "hard look" review concerning the project's impact on wildlife, the community character of the Village of Wellsville, and surface water, particularly in relation to an adjacent golf course reconstruction. Consequently, the negative declaration was annulled, and the petition was granted.

SEQRAEnvironmental ImpactNegative DeclarationHard Look ReviewWildlife ConservationCommunity PlanningSurface Water ProtectionLand UseAppellate ReviewArticle 78 Proceeding
References
15
Case No. 15-cv-4357 (PAC)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Chavis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cory Chavis, an Asset Protection Manager at a Walmart in Suffern, New York, sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Chavis sought a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays due to her Sabbath observance. While initially requiring her to use vacation days, Walmart later granted her accommodation. Chavis subsequently claimed a hostile work environment and discriminatory denial of seventeen promotions. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing claims of failure to accommodate and hostile work environment, as well as most promotion claims. However, it denied summary judgment on Chavis's retaliation claim and promotion claims for specific MAPM and ASM positions, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Religious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentSabbath AccommodationWalmartEmployment LawNew York Law
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1999

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. McKenzie

Jeremiah McKenzie sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and manager Rick Rumfelt for wrongful termination and slander after being fired from a Wal-Mart in Tyler, Texas, allegedly for instituting a worker’s compensation claim and racial discrimination. He later amended his petition to include retaliatory discharge and a Texas Labor Code discrimination claim after being rehired and re-fired from another Wal-Mart store. A jury awarded McKenzie damages, including back-pay, mental anguish, lost credit reputation, and exemplary damages. Wal-Mart challenged the availability of compensatory and punitive damages under former article 5221k in a post-verdict motion. The court of appeals ruled Wal-Mart waived this objection by not raising it earlier. However, the higher court reversed, holding Wal-Mart’s objection was timely as the availability of remedies is a legal question, remanding the case for consideration of the merits.

Wrongful DischargeRetaliatory DischargeRacial DiscriminationCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesEquitable RemediesJury IssuesAppellate ReviewWaiverPleading Amendments
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2005

Duffy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Floor Management, Inc. for personal injuries from a slip and fall on a wet floor inside a Wal-Mart store. Floor Management, a subcontractor for floor cleaning, moved for summary judgment, arguing it had subcontracted its responsibilities to Crystal Clear Nationwide Management and was not actively involved. Wal-Mart cross-moved for contractual indemnification from Floor Management. The Supreme Court denied Floor Management’s motion and partially granted Wal-Mart’s cross-motion, requiring Floor Management to defend Wal-Mart. On cross appeals, the appellate court modified the order, granting Floor Management's motion for summary judgment, finding no liability to plaintiff. The court also granted Wal-Mart's motion for indemnification from Floor Management, applying Arkansas law as per a choice of law provision, and found Floor Management entitled to indemnification from Crystal Clear Nationwide Management.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityIndependent ContractorChoice of LawArkansas LawNegligenceAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 2-02-276-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2003

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Diane Kelley

The case involves an appeal by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. against a default judgment entered in favor of Diane Kelley in a workers' compensation case. Wal-Mart challenged the trial court's denial of its motion for a new trial, arguing it had a meritorious defense under the *Craddock* elements. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Wal-Mart failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a meritorious defense. Additionally, Wal-Mart's complaint regarding the lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law was waived due to untimely filing. A dissenting opinion argued that Wal-Mart had "set up" a meritorious defense by referring to a prior Workers' Compensation Commission decision, which stated Kelley did not sustain a compensable injury.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionMeritorious DefenseCraddock TestWorkers' Compensation ClaimEvidence LawCivil ProcedureTexas Courts
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 9,270 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