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. 01-17-00626-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Helwig Van Der Grinten, James W. Dalton and Anis Hussain v. City of Sugarland, Joe R. Zimmerman, Doug Brinkley and Allen Bogard

The appellants, Helwig Van Der Grinten, James W. Dalton, and Anis Hussain, filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a Supplemental Reply Appeal Brief in the First Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas. They seek permission to respond to a Supplemental Appeal Brief filed by the appellees, City of Sugar Land, Joe R. Zimmerman, Doug Brinkley, and Allen Bogard. The appellants argue that they are entitled to the last brief and that filing the supplemental brief would not interfere with the appeal's progress. They also state that the supplemental brief addresses a serious issue of subject matter jurisdiction concerning Article V, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution. Counsel for the appellees, George A. Staples, confirmed that the appellees do not oppose this motion.

Appellate ProcedureMotion PracticeSupplemental BriefSubject Matter JurisdictionTexas ConstitutionArticle V Section 19Red Light Camera LawsExhaustion of RemediesSeparation of PowersUltra Vires Claim
References
12
Case No. 14-15-00227-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2015

James P. Grantham v. J&B Sausage Company, Inc., D/B/A J Bar B Foods

James P. Grantham, the Appellant, filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File its Reply Brief in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas. The original brief was due on June 7, 2015, and Grantham requested an additional fifteen days, extending the deadline to June 22, 2015. The appellant cited a scheduled administrative benefit review conference before the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation, and an unavoidable conflict as reasons for the extension. The court document indicates the filing was accepted.

Workers' CompensationMotionExtension of TimeReply BriefAppellate ProcedureTexasHoustonLitigationCivil ProcedureDue Date
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estrellita A. v. Jennifer L.D.

A motion filed by the National Association of Social Workers and others, seeking permission to submit an amici curiae brief in the ongoing appeals, has been granted. The proposed brief has been accepted for filing by the court. It was noted that Judge Fahey did not participate in the deliberation or decision regarding this motion.

Amici CuriaeMotion GrantedAppealsBrief FilingJudicial Non-ParticipationLeave to FileAppellate Procedure
References
0
Case No. 03-14-00548-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2014

M&M Orthodontics P.A.and Harlingen Family Dentistry v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission Dr. Kyle Janek, in His Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of Texas Health and Human Services Commission Carole Hurley, Chief Administrative Law Judge for the Texas Health and Human Services Commiss

Appellees, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Dr. Kyle Janek, and Administrative Law Judges Carole Hurley, Keith Grantham, and Rick Gilpin, filed an unopposed joint motion requesting a 60-day extension to file their brief in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas. The current deadline is December 31, 2014, and the requested extension would move it to March 2, 2015. This is their first request for an extension. The primary reason for the extension is recent developments in the underlying administrative proceedings, specifically the filing of Notices of Nonsuit against Appellants, which may render the appeal moot. Appellees anticipate filing a joint motion to dismiss in the near future and require additional time to confer with Appellants and their counsel. Additionally, counsel for both the HHSC Appellees and the ALJ Appellees cited demanding litigation schedules and upcoming holiday office closures as reasons for needing more time.

Extension of TimeMootnessNonsuitAdministrative ProceedingsAppellate ProcedureTravis CountyThird Court of AppealsTexas Health and Human Services CommissionAppellees' BriefLitigation Schedule
References
7
Case No. 03-14-00738-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2015

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC// Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.

The Appellees and Cross-Appellants, RLJII-C Austin Air, LP; RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP; and RJL Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC, filed an unopposed motion to amend their Appellees' Brief. The amendment seeks to correct a sentence fragment on page 5 of their brief by adding ten omitted words. The omission occurred due to an error during the final preparation of the brief, where a phrase was accidentally deleted during a copy-and-paste operation and was not detected until after the brief was filed. Counsel for the Appellant and Cross-Appellee is not opposed to the requested amendment. The motion requests that the court grant leave to amend and accept the Amended Appellees' Brief for filing.

Motion to Amend BriefSentence Fragment CorrectionAppellate ProcedureUnopposed MotionBrief AmendmentCivil ProcedureContract LawAttorney's FeesStanding to SueAssignment of Contract
References
168
Case No. 01-14-00515-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

Kosoco, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County

The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) filed this supplemental brief in response to Kosoco, Inc.'s reply brief. METRO argues that Kosoco's contention regarding material and substantial impairment of access during construction was waived, as it was not raised in their initial brief and lacked sufficient legal or evidentiary support. METRO asserts that any inconveniences during construction were normal and did not constitute a material and substantial impairment of access, nor is a decrease in business profitability relevant to a takings claim. The brief cites several Texas cases and rules of appellate procedure to support its arguments. METRO requests that the Court of Appeals affirm the trial court's order dismissing Kosoco's takings claim.

Appellate BriefWaiver of ArgumentTakings ClaimImpairment of AccessConstruction ImpactsEvidentiary SupportLegal PrecedentSummary JudgmentTrial Court OrderAffirmation
References
16
Case No. 04-15-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2015

Brian McEnery v. City of San Antonio and Chief Charles N. Hood

Brian McEnery, an Appellant, files a reply brief challenging a lower court's decision regarding an arbitrator's award in a dispute with the City of San Antonio and Chief Charles N. Hood. The brief addresses several key issues, including whether McEnery waived certain arguments on appeal, the alleged absence of feedback in a firefighter assessment center examination, and the application of Texas Local Government Codes regarding promotion procedures. McEnery also disputes the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel, argues that his failure in a tactical exercise should not be upheld, and asserts that the arbitrator's decision was deficient. Additionally, the Appellant contends that his appeal is not moot and that his notice of appeal was timely filed.

ArbitrationAssessment CenterPromotional ExamCollective Bargaining AgreementLocal Government LawCivil ServiceRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelMootnessAppellate Jurisdiction
References
12
Case No. ADJ5761209
Regular
Sep 20, 2010

RICHARD PADGETT vs. AON CORPORATION, CAMBRIDGE/XCHANGING

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant Aon Corporation's petition for reconsideration of an administrative law judge's findings. This decision was made to allow for a more thorough review of the case's factual and legal issues. Additionally, the WCAB granted the defendant's request to file a supplemental brief within 15 days. All future correspondence regarding this case should be directed to the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners.

ADJ5761209Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactSupplemental BriefAppeals Board Rule 10848Decision After ReconsiderationOffice of the Commissioners
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hroncich v. Edison

The City of New York filed a motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae and for leave to appear amicus curiae on an appeal. The court granted both motions, accepting the proposed brief as filed. For the appearance amicus curiae, the leave was granted only to the extent that the proposed brief was accepted. The City is required to serve two copies and file nineteen copies of the brief within seven days. Chief Judge Lippman did not participate in this decision.

Amicus CuriaeMotion PracticeLeave to AppealBrief FilingProcedural OrderCourt of AppealsNew York Law
References
0
Case No. 01-22-00761-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2023

Eugenia Woodard v. Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers Compensation, CAPPS Electric Company and Texas Mutual Insurance Company

Appellant Eugenia Woodard, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal and a premature brief. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas at Houston struck her initial brief due to its early filing and lack of record references. Subsequently, the Court granted Woodard's motion for an extension to file a proper appellant's brief. A separate motion for extension from appellee Texas Mutual Insurance Company was dismissed as moot, as no deadline for appellee's brief had yet been established. Furthermore, the Court ordered that Woodard be allowed to proceed on appeal without payment of court costs, noting her filed statement of inability to afford payment.

Appellate ProcedureBrief FilingExtension of TimeCourt CostsPro Se LitigantWorkers' CompensationMotion to StrikeStatement of Inability to Afford PaymentTexas Appeals
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 12,923 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