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. 05-14-01265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2015

Azeb Ruder v. William Jordan D/B/A William Davis Realty, William Davis Real Estate Services, LLC

Azeb Ruder appealed the denial of her motion to dismiss defamation claims filed by William Jordan d/b/a William Davis Realty, William Davis Real Estate Services, LLC d/b/a William Davis Realty, and Kathy Jabri. Ruder's motion was filed under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA) after she posted a negative review of Kathy Jabri's real estate services on Zillow. Appellees claimed Ruder's statements were defamatory, specifically regarding the property being 'Temp Off Market' for over 100 days against her wish, other realtors' opinions, and questioning Jabri's competence. The appellate court found Ruder met her burden under TCPA. However, appellees failed to establish a prima facie case for defamation because the alleged false statements were either substantially true (regarding the duration of the 'Temp Off Market' status) or non-actionable statements of opinion (regarding competence or mental state). The court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the defamation claims, remanding for determination of costs and attorney's fees.

DefamationTexas Citizens' Participation ActTCPAFree SpeechReal Estate LawMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedurePrima Facie CaseSubstantial Truth DoctrineStatement of Opinion
References
22
Case No. 2021-08-0034
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Williams, Linda (by Lawrence Williams, surviving spouse) v. Methodist Lebonheur Healthcare

This death claim involves Lawrence Williams, surviving spouse of Linda Williams, who contracted COVID-19 while employed by Methodist Lebonheur Healthcare. The primary dispute centered on the calculation of the maximum total death benefit. Methodist argued for a benefit capped at $184,918.50, based on Ms. Williams's weekly compensation rate. However, the Court, drawing on the precedent of Reynolds v. Free Serv. Tire Co. and interpretations of Tennessee Code Annotated, determined that the correct maximum total benefit was $447,300.00, calculated as 450 weeks times the state's average weekly wage. The Court found the reasoning in Reynolds persuasive, despite Methodist's objections regarding its citation status. Consequently, the Court ordered Methodist to pay Mr. Williams the higher death benefits.

Death ClaimWorkers' CompensationCOVID-19Surviving SpouseMaximum Total BenefitAverage Weekly WageStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawBenefit CalculationCase Precedent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Forbes

Joseph Patrick Williams was injured in a 1984 fall at the Armbrusters' property where William Forbes was a general contractor. Williams, who received workers' compensation benefits, sued Forbes and the Armbrusters. Forbes, having impleaded Williams's employers David Rowe and D. Rowe Home Improvements, sought to amend his answer to include a Workers' Compensation Law defense and moved for summary judgment, which the court denied, although it granted the Armbrusters' cross-motion for summary judgment. Forbes appealed the denial of his summary judgment motion. Williams subsequently moved to dismiss Forbes's appeal as untimely. The court denied Williams's motion, ruling that the 30-day appeal period under CPLR 5513(a) only begins when the appellant is served notice of entry by the prevailing party, not by co-defendants like the Armbrusters. Consequently, Forbes's appeal was deemed timely.

AppealTimeliness of AppealService of NoticeCPLR 5513Workers' Compensation DefenseSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissNassau CountyAppellate DivisionPrevailing Party
References
8
Case No. 03-22-00254-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2022

Kirsten Hanna, Upside Up Properties, LLC, and Upside Up Ventures, Inc. v. M. Matthew Williams David Howell Law Firm of M. Matthew Williams Leighton, Williams, Adkinson, & Brown, PLLC And Leighton, Michaux, Adkinson, & Brown, PLLC

Kirsten Hanna and two LLCs appealed from a Travis County district court's orders dismissing their professional-negligence claims against their former attorneys, M. Matthew Williams, David Howell, and their associated law firms, under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The appellants also challenged the denial of their application for attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Hanna's claims and the denial of her attorney's fees request. However, the court reversed the award of attorney's fees to the Williams Parties, finding the evidence of reasonableness and necessity to be legally insufficient, and remanded that specific issue for redetermination.

Professional NegligenceLegal MalpracticeTexas Citizens Participation ActTCPAAttorney's FeesCommercial Speech ExemptionDTPA ExemptionAnti-Fracturing RuleSummary JudgmentJudicial Estoppel
References
56
Case No. 11-06-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2008

Stephanie Williams A/K/A Stephanie Scholler and Tim Williams v. William Colthurst, Yuko Colthurst, WGW Properties, Inc. D/B/A Century 21 Advantage, Tom DeWitt, Century 21 Real Estate Corporation, and Felix Kauffman

This appeal stems from a landlord-tenant dispute. The landlords (Colthurst) initially sued the tenants (Williams) for unpaid rent and property damage. The tenants counterclaimed, alleging wrongful withholding of their security deposit and a premises liability claim after Mrs. Williams was sexually assaulted in the leased home. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the landlords on the unpaid rent claim and a directed verdict on the premises liability claim, with the jury ruling in favor of the landlords on the remaining issues. On appeal, the tenants challenged multiple aspects of the trial court's judgment, including the summary judgment, the directed verdict, and the jury's findings regarding the security deposit and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the handling of the various claims and upholding sanctions against the tenants' counsel for an intrinsic fraud allegation.

Landlord-Tenant DisputeUnpaid RentProperty DamageSecurity DepositPremises LiabilitySexual AssaultDirected VerdictSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
37
Case No. 2-08-033-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2008

Jerry W. Williams, Jr. v. Danielle Marie Williams

Appellant Jerry W. Williams, Jr. appeals from a divorce decree dissolving his marriage to Appellee Danielle Marie Williams. Jerry argued that the trial court erred by mischaracterizing property, incorrectly valuing the marital estates, and improperly dividing the community estate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that Danielle had a $101,097.24 separate property interest in the ranch property, based on gifts from her mother and stepfather. The court also addressed Jerry's claims regarding the mischaracterization of a horse (Pflamenco) and other separate property items, finding no reversible error due to lack of evidence on value or possession. Ultimately, the appellate court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the community estate and affirmed its judgment.

DivorceProperty DivisionCommunity PropertySeparate PropertyGiftMischaracterizationValuationAbuse of DiscretionRanch PropertyEquine
References
33
Case No. 01-03-00924-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2005

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. v. L.M.S.C., Inc., D/B/A the Dental Solution

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. appealed a judgment in favor of L.M.S.C., Inc., d/b/a The Dental Solution (TDS), stemming from a breach of contract dispute. TDS, a dental placement service, sued the Williams for an unpaid permanent placement fee after Diana Flanagan, whom TDS had previously placed temporarily as a dental hygienist, was hired by the Williams as a full-time dentist. The appellants challenged the jury's findings, arguing the contract did not cover dentists, lacked new consideration for modifications, and missed essential terms. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the placement agreement, as modified by subsequent fee schedules, applied to the placement of dentists and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the Williamses breached the contract by failing to pay the permanent placement fee. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees.

Breach of ContractPlacement AgreementDental IndustryPermanent Placement FeeContract ModificationConsiderationMeeting of the MindsLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
35
Case No. Shelby Chancery No. 106140-1, Appeal No. 02A01-9805-CH-00126
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1999

Mid-South Builders v. Delores Williams

This construction contract case involves Mid-South Builders, Inc. and homeowners Delores and Bessie Williams concerning home repairs. The Williams attempted to rescind the contract after work commenced, but Mid-South Builders completed the job. The trial court found an effective rescission and awarded quantum meruit damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed, holding that the Williams waived their right to rescind by allowing the work to be completed. The case has been remanded for further proceedings to address the Williams' defense regarding breach of contract due to alleged substandard workmanship.

Construction ContractHome RepairsContract RescissionQuantum MeruitWaiver of RightsBreach of ContractWorkmanship DisputesAppellate ReversalRemandTennessee Court of Appeals
References
5
Case No. 11-17-00130-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2019

Francis Gonzales, Individually and as Surviving Widow of Carlos Gonzales v. Brad Williams D/B/A Brad Williams Farms

Appellant Francis Gonzales, individually and as the surviving widow of Carlos Gonzales, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Appellee Brad Williams d/b/a Brad Williams Farms. The lawsuit stemmed from Carlos Gonzales's death in a single-vehicle accident while in the course and scope of employment with Appellee, a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, alleging negligence and gross negligence. Appellee asserted an intoxication defense based on a toxicology report showing multiple controlled substances in Carlos's blood. Appellant argued a lack of reasonable notice for a summary judgment rehearing and the existence of material fact issues, but the appellate court affirmed. The court found that the second hearing did not require new notice and that Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of intoxication, noting that the cause of the accident was irrelevant to the intoxication defense.

Workers' Compensation ActSummary JudgmentIntoxication DefenseWrongful DeathNegligenceGross NegligenceMedical Examiner ReportToxicology ReportControlled SubstancesBurden of Proof
References
13
Case No. 08-02-00195-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2003

Williams, Rhonda Gayle, Ind. and in Behalf of Roger Cecil Williams as Next Friend v. Orion Pacific, Inc., Madison Minerals, Inc., Orrex Plastics Company, L.L.C., Nicholas Fowler, and Other John Does

This lawsuit stems from a severe on-the-job injury sustained by Roger Williams. Rhonda Williams, individually and as next friend, initiated legal action against Orion Pacific, Inc., Madison Minerals, Inc., and Orrex Plastics Company, L.L.C. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all three defendants. The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court correctly denied apex depositions for the president and secretary/treasurer of Madison Minerals, Inc., and whether summary judgment was appropriate prior to the completion of discovery. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Apex DepositionSummary JudgmentDiscovery DisputeWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyCorporate LiabilityNegligence ClaimOn-the-Job InjuryProtective OrderAbuse of Discretion
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,314 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