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. 01-04-01088-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

Universal Computer Consulting, Ltd. Universal Computer Services, Inc. And Dealer Computer Services, Inc. v. Dealer Solutions, L.L.C., Dealer Solutions Holdings, Inc. ADP, Inc., Business Solutions, Inc., SMC Investment, Inc., Southwest Toyota, Inc., and SMC Luxury Cars, Inc.

This trade secrets case involves Appellants Universal Computer Systems, Inc. (UCS) and Appellees Dealer Solutions, L.L.C., Dealer Solutions Holdings, Inc., ADP, Inc., SMC Investment, Inc., Southwest Toyota, Inc., SMC Luxury Cars, Inc., and Business Solutions, Inc. (collectively DSI). The parties had a dispute regarding trade secret misappropriation and a breach of a license agreement, which they agreed to arbitrate. The trial court confirmed the arbitrators' decision, which UCS appealed, alleging improper discovery orders and 'gross mistakes' by the arbitrators. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's confirmation, finding that any error in the trial court's discovery order was ameliorated by the arbitrators' full consideration of evidence, and that UCS failed to demonstrate gross mistake in the arbitration decision.

Trade secretsArbitrationDiscovery sanctionsArbitration awardCopyright preemptionSoftware licensingConfidentiality agreementBreach of contractGross mistakeTexas General Arbitration Act
References
21
Case No. 14-04-00819-CV; 14-04-01103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2005

in Re: Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc.

Relators, Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc., Universal Computer Consulting, Ltd., and Dealer Computer Services, Inc., filed an appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus after the trial court denied their motion to compel arbitration against Hillcrest Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. The dispute arose from two contracts between DCS and Hillcrest containing arbitration provisions. Hillcrest argued the provisions were unconscionable due to fraudulent inducement, a Michigan forum selection clause, limited remedies, a shortened statute of limitations, and potential prohibitive arbitration costs. The appellate court found that Hillcrest failed to prove either procedural or substantive unconscionability. Additionally, the court ruled that the non-signatories, UCCH and UCC, could compel arbitration under equitable estoppel because Hillcrest's allegations involved substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the non-signatories and the signatory. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the interlocutory appeal, instructing the trial court to vacate its order and compel arbitration.

ArbitrationMandamusInterlocutory AppealUnconscionabilityForum Selection ClauseChoice of LawStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelNon-SignatoriesContract Law
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Universal Computer Systems, Inc. v. Dealer Solutions, L.L.C.

This case involves a trade secrets dispute between UCS (appellants) and DSI, Sterling McCall, BSI, and ADP (appellees) concerning computer software for car dealerships. The parties initially engaged in a lengthy discovery battle before agreeing to arbitrate their claims. The trial court had issued an order attempting to limit the evidence UCS could present during arbitration, which UCS argued was an improper discovery sanction. However, the arbitrators, despite this order, allowed UCS to present all its evidence. The arbitration panel ultimately found that UCS failed to prove its trade secret misappropriation claim, reasoning that its evidence did not adequately describe the overall structure, architecture, and design of its computer system as a whole. Additionally, the arbitrators concluded that, even if proven, the claim was preempted by federal copyright law. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that while the trial court's pre-arbitration discovery order was improper, it did not cause an improper judgment because the arbitrators considered all of UCS's evidence. The court also found no "gross mistake" in the arbitrators' decision regarding the trade secret claims or the preemption issue.

ArbitrationTrade SecretsDiscovery DisputeCopyright PreemptionSoftware MisappropriationAppellate ReviewArbitration Award ConfirmationGross Mistake StandardTexas General Arbitration ActEvidentiary Limits
References
26
Case No. M2001-01611-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2003

Michael Hayes v. Computer Sciences

Michael Lee Hayes sued Aerospace Contractor Support (ACS), Computer Sciences Corporation, Dyncorp, Inc., and General Physics Corporation for retaliatory discharge. Hayes alleged he was terminated for filing a workers' compensation claim against a previous employer, Brighton Painting Company, not ACS. The Circuit Court for Coffee County granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that Tennessee law did not permit a retaliatory discharge claim against a subsequent employer for a prior workers' compensation claim. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that a cause of action for retaliatory discharge exists under Tennessee law when an employee is terminated by a subsequent employer due to a workers' compensation claim filed against a previous employer. The court emphasized that this interpretation is necessary to enforce the duty of the employer, secure the rights of the employee, and fulfill the legislative intent of the Workers' Compensation Act, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimPrior EmployerSubsequent EmployerSummary JudgmentAt-Will Employment ExceptionPublic PolicyAppellate ReviewEmployment LawTennessee Court of Appeals
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

La Tier v. Compaq Computer Corp.

Alegría La Tier appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Compaq Computer Corporation in a suit alleging retaliatory discharge. La Tier claimed her termination was in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, while Compaq asserted it was for violating company policy regarding dishonesty and misuse of assets (taking leftover food). The appellate court reviewed whether La Tier presented sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between her workers' compensation claim and termination, and whether Compaq's stated reason for termination was legitimate. The court found that evidence, including supervisors' knowledge of the claim, a negative attitude displayed by a supervisor, and conflicting testimony regarding company policy on taking leftover food, raised genuine issues of material fact. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimSummary Judgment AppealCausal LinkPretextCircumstantial EvidenceEmployment LawBurden ShiftingTexas LawCompany Policy Violation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nakis v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Donnelly Mechanical Corp., was injured while repairing a malfunctioning air-conditioning system at Apple Computer, Inc.'s premises. He fell from a nondefective ladder after receiving an electric shock from a loose, exposed wire. The court addresses several motions for summary judgment. Claims against general contractor J.T. Magen and Co. under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 200, 241(6) and common-law negligence are dismissed, as Magen was not involved in the work. Claims against Pomalee Electric Co., Inc. for common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 are not dismissed due to factual disputes regarding the wire. The court also denies Apple's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, ruling that the work constituted a 'repair,' not routine maintenance, and that a fall from a nondefective ladder due to an electric shock can still lead to liability under the section, citing conflicting precedents.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Routine MaintenanceRepair WorkElectric Shock InjuryLadder FallSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityNew York Labor Law
References
23
Case No. 05-14-00257-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2015

Sun Tec Computer, Inc. v. the Recovar Group, LLC, Tax Debt Acquisition Company, LLC

This document is a post-submission letter brief filed by Appellee Tax Debt Acquisition Company, LLC (TDAC) in response to Appellants' (Sun Tec Computer Inc., et al.) post-submission brief. TDAC argues that Appellants raised two new arguments that were not presented in their initial brief, thereby waiving them. Even if considered, TDAC asserts that these arguments—concerning a motion to consolidate that was never ruled upon and the application of Section 64.052 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code to authorize a collateral attack on a turnover order and receiver's sale—do not change the fact that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed. TDAC contends that Appellants are pursuing relief in the wrong case and that the judgment should be upheld.

Post-Submission BriefWaiver of ArgumentMotion to ConsolidateTrial Court JudgmentAffirmation of JudgmentCollateral AttackTurnover OrderReceiver's SaleTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Compaq Computer Corp. v. Lapray

This case concerns a class action lawsuit initiated by Hal LaPray, Tracy D. Wilson, Jr., and Alisha Seale Owens against Compaq Computer Corporation. The plaintiffs allege a defect in the floppy disk controllers (FDC) of certain Compaq computers and sought class certification for claims of declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and breach of express warranty, specifically disclaiming consequential damages for data loss. Compaq appealed the trial court's order certifying the class. The appellate court addressed and rejected Compaq's various arguments, including those challenging the mandatory class certification for declaratory relief, the trial plan's limitations on individual defenses, and the fulfillment of class action requirements such as typicality, predominance, and superiority. The court also dismissed Compaq's claims regarding conflicts of law and the adequacy of class representation. Ultimately, the trial court's class certification order was affirmed.

Class ActionProduct LiabilityDefective ProductFloppy Disk ControllerBreach of WarrantyDeclaratory JudgmentClass CertificationAppellate ReviewTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 42(b)(2)Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 42(b)(4)
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 1985

Fischer v. CGA Computer Associates, Inc.

Addison M. Fischer sought to confirm an arbitration award against CGA Computer, Inc., stemming from a dispute over employment and acquisition agreements related to computer software. Fischer alleged breach of contract due to unpaid royalties and lack of audits, while CGA sought declaratory relief concerning Fischer's obligations. The arbitration panel issued an award, which Fischer petitioned the court to confirm. The District Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed the arbitration award, modifying it to clarify that the "FINDINGS" section constituted declarations of rights and duties. The court denied Fischer's request for costs, concluding that CGA had not acted vexatiously or in bad faith. An addendum further clarified the court's jurisdiction, affirming that the contracts involved interstate commerce.

Arbitration ConfirmationContract DisputeSoftware RoyaltiesEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractRight of First RefusalNon-Compete ClauseJudicial Review of ArbitrationFederal JurisdictionInterstate Commerce
References
14
Case No. Davidson Circuit No. 97C-1823; Appeal No. 01A01-9809-CV-00459
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1999

Davis v. Computer Maintenance Svc.

This is an employment disability discrimination case where John Davis sued Computer Maintenance Service, Inc., alleging wrongful termination due to his diabetes under the Tennessee Handicap Act. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory termination. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the summary judgment, applying the reasoning from Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc. The court held that Davis's diabetes, when mitigated by medication, did not constitute a 'handicap' under the Act, and he was not 'regarded as' handicapped because he could not prove he was perceived as unable to perform a broad class of jobs. Additionally, summary judgment on other claims, including retaliatory discharge and emotional distress, was affirmed due to a lack of factual support.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationTennessee Handicap ActSummary JudgmentDiabetes MellitusMitigating MeasuresSutton v. United Airlines PrecedentWrongful TerminationMajor Life ActivitiesRegarded As Disabled
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 284 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