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. 04-14-00483-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Rowland Martin, Jr. v. Edward L. Bravenec and 1216 West Ave., Inc.

Rowland J. Martin, the Appellant, filed a supplemental motion for rehearing, expedited judgment, and writ relief with the Texas Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, Bexar County, on February 25, 2015. He seeks to enforce the Texas Citizen's Participation Act (TCPA) and alleges fraud on the court by Appellees Edward Bravenec and 1216 West Ave. Inc., facilitated by attorneys Bravenec and Deadman. Martin contends that the Appellees concealed a property transfer to Torralba Properties, LLC, which created a resulting trust and negated the Appellees' standing in the underlying tortious interference case. He requests the court to grant special exceptions, reverse the trial court's orders, and issue temporary injunctive relief, arguing that the Appellees' lawsuit is a sham and his recorded lis pendens constitutes protected speech under Anti-SLAPP laws. Martin emphasizes the importance of promptly adjudicating fraud on the court issues in interlocutory appeals to preserve judicial integrity and due process.

Anti-SLAPPFraud on the CourtSupplemental Motion for RehearingExpedited JudgmentWrit ReliefTexas Citizen's Participation ActInterlocutory AppealResulting TrustLis PendensTemporary Injunctive Relief
References
56
Case No. 13-09-00443-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2010

in Re: Adan Volpe Properties, Ltd. and Maricela Volpe as General Partner

Adan Volpe Properties, Ltd. and Maricela Volpe (relators) filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a trial court's order to transfer venue. The relators' original lawsuit in Hidalgo County alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, defamation, libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, racketeering, and sought injunctive relief. The trial court granted motions by Donato Volpe Jr., Eustorgio Perez, and Luis Antonio Figueroa (real parties in interest) to transfer venue to Webb County, based on mandatory venue provisions for injunctions. The Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals reviewed whether the injunctive relief sought by relators was primary or ancillary to their claims for damages. The appellate court concluded that the injunctive relief was ancillary, thus section 65.023 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which mandates venue for primarily injunctive suits, did not apply. The petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, ordering the trial court to withdraw its venue transfer order.

MandamusVenue TransferCivil ProcedureInjunctive ReliefAncillary ClaimsFraudBreach of Fiduciary DutyDefamationRacketeeringTexas Court of Appeals
References
33
Case No. WR No. 20,644
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Larson, Paul Allen

Paul Larson, acting pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Error/Bill of Review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Larson alleges errors appearing on the face of the record and extrinsic fraud committed by the State in connection with prior Cause Numbers 449008-C, 449008-D, 465007-C, and 465007-D. He specifically claims the State mislabeled a June 12, 2014, answer as 'Original' and intentionally delayed its delivery. Larson seeks a full review of the Habeas Record, an order for the Harris County District Clerk's Office to provide complete files, and for the Court to grant his Bill of Review and the relief originally sought in his Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Writ of Mandamus.

Writ of ErrorBill of ReviewHabeas CorpusMandamusFraudError on RecordExtrinsic FraudTexas Court of Criminal AppealsPro SeSupervised Release
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re State

The State of Texas filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, contending that the district court issued a void order assessing attorneys’ fees after a previous appellate mandate. The district court had awarded Anderson Courier Service $368,857 in attorneys' fees as supplemental relief under sections 37.009 and 37.011 of the Texas Declaratory Judgment Act. The State argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to make such an award post-mandate. This Court denied the petition for mandamus, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the request for supplemental relief under section 37.011, even after the appeal was completed. The opinion clarified that issues regarding whether the award was "necessary or proper" would be addressed in a pending appeal, as they do not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction.

MandamusJurisdictionAttorneys' FeesDeclaratory Judgment ActSupplemental ReliefAppellate MandateVoid OrderCivil ProcedureTexas Law
References
18
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. 13-09-00674-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2010

in Re: Dallas National Insurance Company

This dissenting memorandum opinion addresses a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Dallas National Insurance Company, seeking a ruling from the trial court on its plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The dissenting justice agrees with the majority that the trial court has a ministerial duty to rule and has refused to do so. However, the dissent disagrees with the majority's conclusion that the trial court's three-year delay in ruling is reasonable, despite the possibility of a related case. The dissenting justice concludes that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule within a reasonable amount of time and would therefore conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to exercise its discretion without dictating the outcome.

Writ of MandamusPlea to the JurisdictionMotion to DismissAbuse of DiscretionReasonable TimeDissenting OpinionAppellate ProcedureTrial Court DelayInterlocutory AppealJudicial Duty
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Braden v. Marquez

Sotera Pineira obtained a $20,000 judgment against her employer, Alliance Health Inc., for a work-related injury. Alliance subsequently sold its assets, prompting Pineira to pursue an alter ego theory against Frank Braden and Bill Ehrhardt, alleging they were Alliance's alter egos to satisfy the judgment. Ehrhardt filed a special appearance, and both Braden and Ehrhardt filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to add them to the lawsuit after the original judgment became final. The trial court denied both motions, prompting Braden and Ehrhardt (relators) to seek a writ of mandamus. The appellate court denied leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus, finding no clear abuse of discretion in the denial of the special appearance and no extraordinary circumstances warranting mandamus relief for the plea to the jurisdiction.

MandamusSpecial AppearancePlea to JurisdictionAlter EgoCorporate VeilPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionEnforcement of JudgmentAbuse of DiscretionAdequate Remedy by Appeal
References
18
Case No. 13-02-529-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2003

in Re: C & H News Co.

The relator, Nueces News Agency, Inc., d/b/a ETD KroMar, Southern Division (also known as C & H News Co.), petitioned the Thirteenth District Court of Texas for a writ of mandamus. The relator sought to compel arbitration in a wrongful death suit brought by Odilia Gallegos and others (real parties in interest) following the death of an employee, Jesus Gallegos, Sr. The respondent, Judge Rolando Olvera of the 357th District Court of Cameron County, had denied the relator's motion to compel arbitration. This appellate court previously denied mandamus relief due to an incomplete record. Upon a second review with a complete record, the Court found that the arbitration agreement, by incorporating an employee handbook, allowed the relator to unilaterally amend the types of claims subject to arbitration. Consequently, the Court ruled that the arbitration agreement was an illusory promise, lacking mutuality of obligation, and therefore unenforceable. The petition for writ of mandamus was denied, affirming the trial court's decision.

MandamusArbitration AgreementIllusory PromiseEmployment ContractMutuality of ObligationUnilateral AmendmentFederal Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionContract Interpretation
References
29
Case No. 01-25-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2025

In Re Gulf Coast Flooring & Services, Inc. v. the State of Texas

Relator, Gulf Coast Flooring & Services, LLC, sought a writ of mandamus to challenge a trial court's order that denied its plea to the jurisdiction and plea in abatement. The relator argued that the real parties in interest, including the Estate of Alexander Uzcategui, failed to exhaust administrative remedies with the Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation, claiming the division has exclusive jurisdiction over employee versus independent contractor status. A recent Texas Supreme Court decision, Univ. of Tex. Rio Grande Valley v. Oteka, was referenced by both sides, with differing interpretations regarding its impact on the mandamus relief. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus. However, this denial was without prejudice, allowing the relator to request the probate court to reconsider its ruling in light of the Oteka decision.

Writ of MandamusPlea to the JurisdictionPlea in AbatementAdministrative RemediesWorkers' CompensationExclusive JurisdictionIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee StatusProbate CourtCourt of Appeals
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Aramark Corp.

Relators, Aramark Corporation, Aramark Educational Resources, Reliance National Indemnity Company, and Alexis, Inc., petitioned for a writ of mandamus to challenge the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying case involves Plaintiff Victoria Holmes, who alleged that Relators' failure to provide a walker after a job-related back surgery led to additional injuries and constituted a breach of their workers' compensation policy. Relators contended the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Holmes had not exhausted administrative remedies under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The appellate court denied the petition, finding that Relators failed to demonstrate that they lacked an adequate remedy by appeal for the denial of the plea to the jurisdiction. The court distinguished the case from situations warranting mandamus relief, such as denials of abatement requests in pending administrative proceedings.

Writ of MandamusPlea to JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsExhaustion of Administrative RemediesAdequate Remedy by AppealTrial Court DiscretionExtraordinary RemedyJurisdiction DenialAbatement of ProceedingsBreach of Contract
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,914 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