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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Sting, Ltd. v. R.B. Foods, Inc.

Appellants, Texas Sting, Ltd. and Michael Konderla, appealed the denial of their motion for new trial, seeking to set aside a dismissal for want of prosecution and a default judgment. They contended they received no notice of either the dismissal docket setting or the trial on R.B. Foods’s counterclaims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal for want of prosecution, noting that appellants had a post-dismissal hearing but failed to present evidence of diligent prosecution. However, the court reversed the default judgment, finding that appellants' failure to appear was not intentional or consciously indifferent due to the clerk mailing notices to an incorrect, outdated address. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on R.B. Foods’s counterclaims.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice RequirementsDue ProcessAbuse of DiscretionCraddock TestAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil ProcedureRemand
References
21
Case No. 03-01-00412-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2001

Javier Rodriguez v. Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, dismissed Javier Rodriguez's appeal for want of prosecution. The appellant failed to pay for or make arrangements for the clerk's record, did not file a docketing statement, and failed to respond to a status report request by the deadline. The court, citing Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, dismissed the appeal on its own motion due to these procedural defaults.

Appeal DismissalWant of ProsecutionProcedural DefaultFiling FeesDocketing StatementClerk's RecordTexas Court of AppealsAppellate Procedure
References
4
Case No. 14-01-00920-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2003

McGuire, James A. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

James McGuire appealed the denial of two motions for new trial following an agreed judgment for violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. He contended the trial court erred by allowing his motion to be overruled by operation of law and by failing to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found McGuire waived any error by failing to request a hearing on his motion for new trial and that the issue of want of prosecution was not preserved for appeal.

lawyer disciplinemotion for new trialwant of prosecutionappellate procedureabuse of discretionwaiver of errorTexas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conductagreed judgmentappellate recordjudicial notice
References
9
Case No. 13-07-537-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2009

Christi Bay Temple v. Guideone Specialty Mutual Insurance Company

Christi Bay Temple appealed the dismissal of its insurance dispute against Guideone Specialty Mutual Insurance Company and other related entities by the trial court for want of prosecution. The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting Guideone's plea in abatement due to the church's forfeited corporate charter and subsequently dismissing the case. While upholding the trial court's decisions on abatement and dismissal, the appellate court found that the trial court erred by including a Mother Hubbard clause and allocating costs, as dismissals for want of prosecution should not be on the merits. Consequently, the judgment was modified to remove these erroneous provisions and affirmed as modified.

corporate capacitydismissal for want of prosecutionplea in abatementinsurance disputeappellate reviewabuse of discretioncorporate charter forfeitureTexas Tax CodeTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureMother Hubbard clause
References
24
Case No. 09-22-00336-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

Jay Roger Owens v. Brock Agency, Inc. and Mark Taylor

Jay Roger Owens appealed the trial court's dismissal of his negligence lawsuit for want of prosecution and the denial of his motion to reinstate. Owens had sued Brock Agency, Inc. and Mark Taylor for injuries sustained after a fall. The trial court dismissed the case when Owens's attorney failed to appear for a pre-trial hearing, which the attorney later attributed to a calendaring error. The Court of Appeals affirmed the initial dismissal for want of prosecution but reversed the denial of the motion to reinstate, finding the attorney's explanation of a calendaring error to be a reasonable excuse and concluding the trial court abused its discretion in denying reinstatement. The case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to reinstate.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionMotion to ReinstateCalendaring ErrorAbuse of DiscretionAppellate JurisdictionVerified MotionAttorney ConductNegligence ClaimPremises LiabilityTexas Civil Procedure
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Christi Bay Temple v. Guideone Specialty Mutual Insurance Co.

Christi Bay Temple, the appellant, appealed the trial court's order dismissing its suit against Guideone Specialty Mutual Insurance Company et al. for want of prosecution. The church had initially sued Guideone in 2004 over an insurance dispute. Guideone filed a plea in abatement, arguing that the church lacked the capacity to sue because its corporate charter had been forfeited in 1983 for failure to comply with franchise tax requirements, which the trial court granted. Despite being given an opportunity to cure this incapacity, the church failed to do so, leading to the dismissal of its case. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal but modified the trial court's judgment by deleting the allocation of costs and the 'Mother Hubbard clause,' clarifying that a dismissal for want of prosecution is not a judgment on the merits.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionPlea in AbatementCorporate Charter ForfeitureLack of Capacity to SueAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeTrial Court Judgment ModificationTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
30
Case No. 03-02-00303-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2004

Joseph E. Boullt v. Joe Smith, Jack Doe and Johnson Equipment Company

Joseph E. Boullt, a pro se appellant, was injured during his employment with Johnson Equipment Company. He sued his employer, supervisor Joe Smith, and representative Jack Doe for negligence and intentional torts, alleging unsafe work conditions and delayed medical care. The trial court granted summary judgment to the appellees based on the exclusive remedy of the Workers' Compensation Act and dismissed remaining claims for want of prosecution. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Johnson Equipment on all claims and for Smith and Doe on negligence claims. However, it reversed the summary judgment for Smith and Doe concerning intentional torts, stating the Act does not protect co-employees from such liability. The court also reversed the dismissal for want of prosecution due to a clerical error and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationIntentional TortNegligenceSummary JudgmentDismissal for Want of ProsecutionAppellate ReviewExclusive Remedy RulePro Se LitigantJudicial DiscretionAbuse of Discretion
References
35
Case No. 01-13-00923-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2014

Virginia Dailey and John W. Dailey v. Frank Dailey and Terry Dailey

Virginia Dailey and John W. Dailey appealed the dismissal of their claims against Frank Dailey and Terry Dailey, which arose from the conveyance of real property. Virginia and John had sold property to their son Frank and his wife Terry, then later sued to set aside the conveyance, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy. Frank and Terry asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and specific performance. The trial court initially dismissed Virginia and John's claims, then reinstated Frank and Terry's counterclaims, and subsequently dismissed Virginia and John's claims for want of prosecution. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that Virginia and John failed to properly assign error to the final judgment (the June 24th dismissal for want of prosecution) and did not preserve their argument for appellate review, nor provide evidence meeting the Craddock standard.

Real PropertyProperty ConveyanceFraud AllegationsBreach of Fiduciary DutyConspiracy to Commit FraudBreach of ContractSpecific PerformanceDismissal of ClaimsWant of ProsecutionAppellate Procedure
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farrell v. Greater Houston Transportation Co.

Farrell and Smethers appealed a summary judgment in favor of Yellow Cab and the dismissal of their suit against Felix Ogunsakin for want of prosecution. The appellants were injured when Ogunsakin, driving a Yellow Cab taxicab, allegedly ran a red light. The appeal focused on Yellow Cab's liability under the City of Houston Code § 46-17, arguing it should be strictly liable for its drivers' torts, and on whether Ogunsakin was an employee or independent contractor, which would determine Yellow Cab's vicarious liability. The court found that City Code § 46-17 does not impose strict liability and affirmed that Ogunsakin was an independent contractor based on several factors, including his control over his work, method of payment, and the nature of the agreement with Yellow Cab, despite Yellow Cab holding the vehicle title for self-insurance purposes. The court also affirmed the dismissal against Ogunsakin, noting the trial court's inherent power to dismiss for want of prosecution.

Summary JudgmentIndependent ContractorVicarious LiabilityCity OrdinanceTaxi RegulationRight to Control TestAppellate ReviewTort LawPersonal InjuryWant of Prosecution
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2007

Putnam v. County of Steuben

This case involves an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs on their cause of action for malicious prosecution. The defendant appealed the judgment, challenging the liability verdict and the award of damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to set aside the liability verdict, concluding that the jury rationally found the defendant's employees acted with reckless disregard for the plaintiff's rights by initiating a criminal prosecution without probable cause. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-appeal, determining that the lower court erred in setting aside the damages award, as damages for malicious prosecution can include those for arrest and imprisonment, and no false arrest claim was present to necessitate a separate instruction on avoiding duplicate awards. The judgment was unanimously affirmed without costs, and the order was modified to deny the defendant’s postjudgment motion in its entirety.

Malicious ProsecutionJury VerdictDamages AwardLiabilityCriminal ProsecutionProbable CauseActual MaliceFalse InstrumentAcquittalPostjudgment Motion
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 662 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