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. 06-02-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2004

Russell Burke and Wife, Lori Burke, and Bob Anderson, as Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee v. Union Pacific Resources Company, N/K/A Anadarko E & P Company, Palestine Water Well Service, Inc. and Jere Pritchett

This case concerns an appeal regarding property damage to a water well caused by seismic testing. The appellants, Russell and Lori Burke and their bankruptcy trustee, sued Union Pacific Resources Company (UPRC) and Palestine Water Well Service, Inc. (PWW). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the Burkes' negligence claim and PWW's tortious interference claim were barred by the statute of limitations. For the Burkes' breach of contract claim, the court found the $1.5 million jury award factually insufficient, suggesting a remittitur. Following the acceptance of a $653,700.00 remittitur by the Burkes, the judgment was modified and affirmed, resulting in a recovery of $842,300.00 for the Burkes and a take-nothing judgment for PWW.

Property DamageSeismic TestingWater WellCattle FeedlotBreach of ContractNegligenceTortious InterferenceStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleDamages
References
74
Case No. 1:00-1898, MDL 1358(SAS), M 21-88, 04-Civ-2389, 04-Civ-5424, 04-Civ-3417, 04-Civ-4968
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2006

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products

This consolidated multi-district litigation (MDL) concerns groundwater contamination by the gasoline additive MTBE and its degradation product, TBA. Defendants moved for summary judgment in several New York actions and one Orange County Water District action, arguing plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because the contamination levels were below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), thus not constituting an "injury-in-fact." The court analyzed whether the MCL defines the scope of a legally protected interest, distinguishing prior cases involving private well owners or those where remediation expenses were not directly linked to contamination. The court concluded that MCLs are regulatory standards for water providers, not a strict definition of what constitutes an injury for tort liability. It determined that contamination below the MCL can still cause a cognizable injury due to monitoring, testing, treatment costs, and issues like taste and odor. The court denied defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that factual disputes remain regarding the extent of plaintiffs' alleged injuries from low-level MTBE contamination, making a summary judgment ruling premature.

Groundwater ContaminationMTBE LitigationTertiary Butyl Alcohol (TBA)Product LiabilityMulti-District Litigation (MDL)Article III StandingSummary JudgmentMaximum Contaminant Level (MCL)Environmental LawWater Quality Standards
References
60
Case No. 13-99-006-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2000

Carroll, Everett and Betty Carroll, Individually and D/B/A Carroll Water Well Service and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Castillo, Santiago, Professional Insurance Agents, Inc. and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company

This case involves Everett Carroll and Betty Carroll, owners of Carroll Water Well Service, appealing a summary judgment granted in favor of Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. The dispute arose after an employee, Santiago Castillo, suffered a thumb injury requiring amputation while operating a drilling rig, and Carroll, who did not subscribe to workers' compensation insurance, was sued by Castillo. Carroll then sued Lumbermens, his commercial automobile liability insurer, which denied coverage. Lumbermens sought summary judgment based on four policy exclusions: (1) injuries not arising from the use of an automobile, (2) the mobile equipment exclusion, (3) the employer's liability exclusion, and (4) the fellow employee exclusion. The appellate court found ambiguities in all four exclusion clauses, interpreting them in favor of the insured (Carroll). Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Insurance lawCommercial automobile liabilityPolicy constructionSummary judgmentExclusion clausesMobile equipmentEmployer's liabilityFellow employeeAmbiguityDe novo review
References
15
Case No. 06-02-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2004

Joseph Dewayne Caster v. State

Russell Burke, Lori Burke, and Bob Anderson (as bankruptcy trustee), collectively 'the Burkes,' sued Union Pacific Resources Company (UPRC), Palestine Water Well Service, Inc. (PWW), and Jere Pritchett for damages to their water well and resulting cattle losses following seismic testing. The Burkes alleged negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, and DTPA violations. UPRC cross-appealed, and PWW filed a cross-action against UPRC for tortious interference. The jury initially awarded the Burkes $1.5 million in actual damages and $3 million in punitive damages, and PWW $200,000 for tortious interference. On appeal, the court ruled that the Burkes' negligence claim and PWW's tortious interference claim were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court found the jury's damage award for the Burkes' breach of contract claim to be factually insufficient, entitling UPRC to a settlement credit. The court suggested a remittitur, conditionally affirming a reduced judgment for the Burkes if accepted, or else remanding the case for a new trial on damages.

Seismic SurveyWater Well DamageBreach of ContractNegligenceStatute of LimitationsTortious InterferenceCross-AppealDamagesRemittiturFactual Sufficiency
References
60
Case No. E2014-01768-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2015

Yvonne Waters v. Donald Waters

This case involves the appeal of a divorce action between Yvonne Waters and Donald Waters after a 27-year marriage. The trial court divided the marital estate, awarding the wife approximately 68% due to her greater financial contribution and frugality, and also awarded her attorney's fees and costs. The husband appealed the property division and the attorney's fees award. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's equitable distribution of marital property but reversed the award of attorney's fees, modifying the total award to cover only discretionary costs, and denied the wife's request for attorney's fees on appeal. The case was remanded for collection of assessed costs.

DivorceMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionAttorney's FeesAlimony in SolidoAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionFinancial ContributionEarning CapacitySeparate Property
References
17
Case No. No. M21-88, MDL 1358
Regular Panel Decision

United Water New York, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp.

This consolidated multi-district litigation (MDL) involves plaintiffs seeking relief from groundwater contamination caused by defendants' use of the gasoline additive MTBE and/or its degradation product TBA. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because the alleged MTBE contamination was below the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) and thus did not constitute a cognizable 'injury-in-fact.' Plaintiffs, including New York water purveyors and the Orange County Water District, countered that their statutory duties require them to address contamination even below MCLs, incurring costs for monitoring, testing, and treatment, and facing taste and odor issues. The court concluded that MCLs serve as a guidepost but do not definitively limit what constitutes a legally cognizable injury, noting that plaintiffs have duties to act before contamination reaches MCLs. Furthermore, the court found factual disputes regarding specific alleged injuries (e.g., taste/odor complaints, increased treatment costs, well shutdowns) to be premature for summary judgment. Therefore, defendants' motions for summary judgment were denied.

Multi-district litigationGroundwater contaminationMTBETBASummary judgmentArticle III StandingInjury-in-factMaximum Contaminant LevelWater quality standardsEnvironmental law
References
51
Case No. 04-14-00609-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Irma Lemus and Manuel Lemus v. John Rene Aguilar, Johnny B. Wells, Laura Ashley Wells, and Johnny Montoya Garza

This case involves an appeal concerning the ownership of a property at 106 Cameo in San Antonio, Texas. The primary dispute revolves around two competing deeds: an informal "will" signed in 2005 by Elvira Aguilar and Johnny Montoya Garza, intended to convey the property to Elvira's grandchildren (John Rene Aguilar, Laura Ashley Wells, and Johnny B. Wells), and a formal warranty deed signed in 2009 by Elvira Aguilar to Irma Lemus and Manuel Lemus, Jr. The appellees argue that the 2005 "will" functions as a valid gift deed, establishing their superior title. They contend that Elvira Aguilar lacked the mental capacity due to advanced Alzheimer's disease to execute the 2009 deed, rendering it void. Additionally, the appellees challenge the appellants' claim for reimbursement for property improvements, asserting a lack of good faith given the appellants' awareness of the adverse claims and the timing of the improvements. The authenticity of Elvira's signature on the 2005 document is also defended.

Property LawDeed DisputeMental CapacityAlzheimer's DiseaseGift DeedTrespass to Try TitleAttorneys FeesGood Faith ImprovementsAppellate ProcedureTexas Law
References
41
Case No. NO. 14-18-00043-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2020

San Jacinto River Authority v. Reba Ogletree

Homeowners, whose properties flooded after water was released from Lake Conroe in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, sued the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) and the Texas Water Development Board in a Harris County district court. They asserted inverse condemnation claims and due process violations. SJRA and the Texas Water Board claimed governmental immunity. The trial court denied SJRA’s motion to dismiss but granted the Texas Water Board’s motion. On interlocutory cross-appeals, the appellate court concluded the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the constitutional inverse condemnation and due process claims, as Harris County civil courts at law have exclusive jurisdiction over such inverse condemnation claims. The court affirmed the dismissal against the Texas Water Board and reversed the order denying SJRA’s plea, rendering judgment dismissing the homeowners’ claims against SJRA for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Inverse CondemnationGovernmental ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionDue Process ClaimsHurricane HarveyLake Conroe DamEminent DomainAppellate StayTrial Court JurisdictionTexas Government Code
References
48
Case No. 05-14-01223-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2014

Michael Morford D/B/A Nemaha Water Services v. Esposito Securities, LLC

This case involves an appeal from the 44th District Court of Dallas County, Texas, concerning an arbitration dispute. Appellee-Plaintiff Esposito Securities, LLC, initiated the original action to enforce a pre-dispute arbitration agreement with Appellants-Defendants (Nemaha Water Services entities). The core issue is whether Appellants-Defendants, who balked on a contractual payment obligation related to a transaction, qualify as 'customers' under FINRA Rule 12200, thereby mandating arbitration before FINRA instead of the contractually specified American Arbitration Association (AAA). The trial court granted Appellee-Plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration before the AAA and denied Appellants-Defendants' motion to compel arbitration before FINRA and their subsequent motion to reconsider. This brief argues to affirm the trial court's judgment, contending that Appellants are not 'customers' as defined by FINRA's rules, and that the pre-dispute arbitration agreement to use AAA supersedes any FINRA arbitration claims.

Arbitration AgreementFINRA Rule 12200Customer StatusFinancial ServicesAppealContract DisputeForum Selection ClauseTexas LawFederal Arbitration ActAmerican Arbitration Association
References
40
Case No. NUMBER 13-18-00236-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2020

Michael A. Garza v. Well Med Medical Management, Inc.

Appellant Michael A. Garza sued Well Med Medical Management, Inc. (Well Med) for personal injuries, alleging negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior after a collision with Well Med employee Joanne Garcia. Garza claimed Garcia was reviewing work-related papers while driving, contending this fell within the course and scope of her employment due to Well Med's flexible work policies. The trial court granted Well Med's motion for summary judgment, finding Garcia was not acting within the scope of her employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding there was no evidence that reviewing documents while driving was a specifically assigned duty or that Well Med had impliedly approved such conduct, distinguishing it from situations where employees are on special missions for their employer.

Respondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentCourse and Scope of EmploymentNegligenceVicarious LiabilityCommuting RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionEmployee ConductEmployer LiabilityTexas Law
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 1,433 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