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. 04-10-00802-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2012

Callaghan Ranch, Ltd (Appellant/Cross Appellee) v. David Killam (Appellee/Cross Appellant)

Callaghan Ranch, Ltd. appealed the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, challenging a jury's finding that a disputed portion of San Ygnacio Road was not impliedly dedicated to the public. The Ranch had sought a declaratory judgment to affirm the road's public status. Concurrently, the Killams, as appellees and cross-appellants, contested the trial court's refusal to award attorney's fees. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, concluding that Callaghan Ranch failed to conclusively prove implied dedication due to disputed evidence. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of attorney's fees, citing that both parties had legitimate interests to pursue.

Implied DedicationDeclaratory JudgmentJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictPublic RoadPrivate RoadAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceProperty RightsTexas Law
References
32
Case No. 05-16-00784-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2018

Tonya Parks and Parks Realty Firm, LLC v. Affiliated Bank, Affiliated Bank FSB, Affiliated Bank, Inc., Bancaffiliated, Inc., Joshua Campbell, Katherine Campbell

The appellant, Tonya Parks and Parks Realty Firm, LLC, files a motion for en banc reconsideration and modification of the Fifth District Court of Appeals' May 3, 2018, memorandum opinion which dismissed their appeal. The appellant contends the appellate court erred by dismissing the appeal and affirming the trial court's decision, arguing that the original settlement agreement was coerced and made under duress due to judicial misconduct, conflicts of interest, and misrepresentation of civil procedure rules. The motion details alleged improprieties by trial court judges (Judge Sally Montgomery, Judge Ted Akin) and defense attorneys, including ex parte communications, false statements about legal procedures, and an unsafe court environment. The appellant seeks to reverse the lower court's findings and orders, including the dismissal of their claims against Affiliated Bank and the Campbells, and to obtain a fair trial and damages for defamation and other harms.

Appellate ProcedureMotion for ReconsiderationJudicial MisconductCoercion and DuressRule 11 AgreementTexas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA)Conflict of InterestLegal EthicsDefamationDismissal of Appeal
References
47
Case No. 04-11-00076-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2011

Dora Gulley (Appellant/Cross Appellee) v. State Farm Lloyds (Appellee/Cross Appellant)

Dora Gulley sued State Farm Lloyds for additional insurance benefits after foundation damage from a plumbing leak was covered under the Dwelling Foundation Endorsement, subject to a 15% limitation, while Gulley sought coverage under a Water Damage Endorsement. Both parties filed competing summary judgment motions, which the trial court denied without making a substantive ruling on which endorsement applied, but certified an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in declining to decide the substantive legal issue presented by the competing summary judgment motions. The court clarified that section 51.014(d) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code is not a mechanism for a certified question before a substantive ruling. Thus, the decision was reversed and remanded for the trial court to make a substantive ruling.

Insurance coverageHomeowners policyFoundation damagePlumbing leakEndorsement interpretationSummary judgmentInterlocutory appealAppellate procedureTrial court errorStatutory interpretation
References
15
Case No. 03-14-00771-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2015

Sanadco Inc., a Texas Corporation Mahmoud Ahmed Isba Broadway Grocery, Inc. And Shariz, Inc. v. Glenn Hegar, in His Individual and Official Capacity as Comptroller of Public Accounts Office of Comptroller of Public Accounts for the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas

This Accelerated Appeal Reply Brief is submitted by Appellants Sanadco Inc. et al., challenging the trial court’s judgment in Cause No. D-1-GN-13-4352. Appellants argue that the underlying administrative judgments, which support the Comptroller’s collection activities, are void and unenforceable. They contend that the audit procedures (AP92 and AP122) were not properly adopted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements, leading to ultra vires conduct by the Comptroller. Appellants assert that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a temporary injunction against the Comptroller's enforcement activities, as the administrative orders lacked a final judgment and were nullified upon the filing of petitions for judicial review. They also argue that Chapter 112’s prepayment provisions are unconstitutional and inapplicable to their claims challenging the validity of rules and statutes.

Administrative Procedure ActUltra ViresDeclaratory JudgmentTax AssessmentState TaxJudicial ReviewOpen Courts ProvisionStatutory AuthorityTemporary InjunctionAppellate Review
References
51
Case No. 04-12-00702-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2013

John Homer Coonly (Appellant/Cross-Appellee) v. Gables Residential Services, Inc., D/B/A Gables West Avenue (Appellee/Cross-Appellant)

John Homer Coonly appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Gables Residential Services, Inc., which resulted in Coonly taking nothing on his claims for negligence, premises liability, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). Coonly's claims stemmed from the theft and vandalism of his motorcycles from the apartment parking garage owned by Gables. Gables filed a cross-appeal regarding the denial of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on negligence and premises liability claims, finding the lease agreements validly waived such claims. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Coonly's DTPA claim, concluding that the waiver language in the agreements did not meet the DTPA's statutory requirements and Coonly's affidavit raised a material issue of fact regarding Gables' representations about the access gate.

NegligencePremises LiabilityDeceptive Trade Practices ActDTPASummary JudgmentLease AgreementExculpatory ClauseWaiver of LiabilityAttorney's FeesContract Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

I. Appel Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.

This appeal concerns the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of St. Paul insurance company, which held that St. Paul had no duty to defend its insured, I. Appel. The underlying lawsuit involved Brenda Kelley, who alleged retaliatory discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress against I. Appel, stemming from an incident with Mike Landreth. St. Paul denied coverage based on policy exclusions for intentional acts and injuries to fellow employees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the policy's exclusionary language clearly applied to I. Appel's alleged intentional acts, thereby relieving St. Paul of its defense obligation.

Insurance contractDuty to defendSummary judgmentPolicy exclusionIntentional bodily injuryRetaliatory dischargeEmotional distressCommercial general liabilityExcess liabilityInsurer obligations
References
5
Case No. 03-93-00675-CR, 03-93-00678-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1995

Jerome Wolf v. State

Appellants Jerome Wolf and Gary Newsome were convicted of engaging in organized criminal activity related to workers' compensation insurance fraud through their company, Metro Financial Group, Inc., d/b/a ATS, Inc. They appealed, raising nine points of error, including challenges to the sufficiency of evidence regarding intent to appropriate property, ownership of the property, and its value, as well as procedural errors in amending indictments and admitting evidence. The Court of Appeals found ample evidence of deception, beginning with misrepresentations in the initial application to the Texas Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Pool and continuing through false payroll reports and refusal to cooperate with audits. The court concluded that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and that any procedural errors were harmless. Consequently, the judgments of the trial court were affirmed on all counts.

Organized Criminal ActivityWorkers' Compensation FraudInsurance TheftSufficiency of EvidenceIndictment AmendmentBusiness Records AdmissibilityProsecutorial MisconductCriminal AppealDeceptionEmployee Leasing Fraud
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Case No. 05-20-00058-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2022

Ken Paxton and the State of Texas v. Arnieka Simmons

Arnieka Simmons challenged the constitutionality of Texas Civil Procedure Rule 510.4(c) and Property Code § 24.0051(a), governing 'nail-and-mail' service in landlord-tenant disputes leading to default judgments. The trial court sided with Simmons, but the State and Attorney General appealed, asserting Simmons lacked standing. The appellate court agreed that Simmons failed to show a direct enforcement connection (traceability) between her alleged injury and the State or Attorney General, which is a required element for standing. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order denying the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Simmons's claims against the State and Attorney General for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Constitutional ChallengeDefault JudgmentLandlord-Tenant LawService of ProcessDue ProcessStanding DoctrineSovereign Immunity WaiverDeclaratory Judgment ActAppellate JurisdictionPlea to the Jurisdiction
References
41
Case No. 06-03-00226-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2004

Jamien Nachor Olivares v. State

Jamien Nachor Olivares, the appellant, filed a motion with the Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana to dismiss his appeal. The court, with Justices Morriss, Ross, and Carter presiding, reviewed the motion. As authorized by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2, the court granted the appellant's request. Consequently, the appeal originating from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, was dismissed.

Criminal LawAppealMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedureTexasCourt of AppealsDismissalRule 42.2
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 20,020 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