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. 01-21-00008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2024

Sealy Emergency Room, L.L.C. and Kannappan Krishnaswamy, M.D. v. Dr. Atul Dhingra, Dr. Swapan Dubey and Dr. Sanjeev Dubey

Appellants Sealy Emergency Room, L.L.C., and Dr. Kannappan Krishnaswamy appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellees Free Standing Emergency Room Managers of America, L.L.C., Dr. Atul Dhingra, Dr. Swapan Dubey, and Dr. Sanjeev Dubey. The dispute arose from a management agreement for an emergency room, with appellants bringing counterclaims and third-party claims for breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent inducement, and negligence. After a previous dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction was reversed by the Texas Supreme Court, the First District of Texas Court of Appeals reviewed the merits. The court found that the appellants failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on any of their claims, concluding that the alleged breaches of contract were not supported by the agreement's plain language or that the best-efforts clause was unenforceable. Furthermore, claims of fraud and negligence were not substantiated or were barred by the economic loss rule. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

Contract DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractFraudFraudulent InducementNegligenceEconomic Loss RuleTexas LawHealthcare Management
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 11-10-00306-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2012

CareFlite v. Rural Hill Emergency Medical Services, Inc.

CareFlite initiated a lawsuit seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Rural Hill Emergency Medical Services, Inc. to disclose information under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA). Rural Hill counterclaimed, requesting a declaratory judgment that it was not a governmental body subject to the TPIA. The trial court granted Rural Hill's motion for summary judgment and denied CareFlite's. On appeal, CareFlite challenged this ruling, arguing that Rural Hill was supported by public funds through non-arms-length contracts and provided services traditionally offered by governmental bodies. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the contractual relationships between Rural Hill and the cities constituted arms-length transactions, thereby exempting Rural Hill from the TPIA's "governmental body" definition. The court also upheld the propriety of Rural Hill's declaratory judgment counterclaim.

Texas Public Information ActGovernmental BodyPublic FundsArms-length TransactionDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmergency Medical ServicesNonprofit CorporationContract Law
References
21
Case No. 15-25-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2025

Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the State of Texas and the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas v. Delia Garza, in Her Official Capacity as Travis County Attorney; John Creuzot, in His Official Capacity as Dallas County Criminal District Attorney; And Brian Middleton, in His Official Capacity as District Attorney of Fort Bend County (268th Judicial District)

This emergency motion seeks to stay the enforcement of new rules (1 TEX. ADMIN. CODE ch. 56) adopted by the Attorney General, which impose onerous reporting requirements on district and county attorneys in large Texas counties. The trial court had temporarily enjoined these rules, but the Attorney General's appeal automatically superseded the injunction. Appellees argue the rules are invalid due to lack of statutory authority, violation of separation of powers, and improper procedure. They also contend that complying with the rules would cause irreparable harm by diverting significant resources and forcing the disclosure of confidential and privileged information, while the Attorney General would suffer no prejudice from a stay. They seek a temporary order from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to preserve the status quo pending appeal.

Emergency MotionTemporary ReliefStay of EnforcementAdministrative RulesAttorney General AuthoritySeparation of PowersProsecutorial DiscretionConfidential InformationUnfunded MandateFiscal Impact
References
34
Case No. 09-03-051 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2003

Magnolia Bend Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. John J. McDonnell and Montgomery County Emergency Services District No. 5

The Magnolia Bend Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. (Fire Department) sued Montgomery County Emergency Services District No. 5 (the District) and John McDonnell, alleging improper transfer of property and breach of fiduciary duty. The District counterclaimed, asserting the original deed placing title in the Fire Department's name was constitutionally void and seeking a resulting trust. The trial court sided with the District, finding the deed void and imposing a resulting trust, and ruled against the Fire Department's claims. The Fire Department appealed, raising issues regarding McDonnell's fiduciary duty, the voidness of the deed, and the imposition of a resulting trust. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial court's findings.

Warranty DeedAssignment of LeaseBreach of Fiduciary DutyResulting TrustConstitutional LawTexas ConstitutionProperty OwnershipPublic FundsVolunteer Fire DepartmentEmergency Services District
References
12
Case No. 1:11-CV-330
Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton County Emergency Communications District v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC

The case concerns multiple Emergency Communications Districts (ECDs) in Tennessee, led by Hamilton County ECD, suing BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC (d/b/a AT&T Tennessee) for allegedly under-billing, under-collecting, and under-remitting 911 emergency service charges. The plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Tennessee False Claims Act, the Emergency Communications District Law (ECD Law), breach of fiduciary duty, various misrepresentation claims (fraudulent, negligent, and concealment), and common law negligence, also seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing claims related to the ECD Law (Count II) and negligence/negligence per se (Count VII). However, it allowed the False Claims Act, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, and declaratory/injunctive relief claims to proceed. The court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, deeming it premature.

911 Emergency ServicesTelecommunicationsTennessee False Claims ActEmergency Communications District LawBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent MisrepresentationFraudulent ConcealmentNegligent MisrepresentationDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent Injunction
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1993

Kelly v. Bane

This case involves an appeal concerning an amendment to the 'Emergency Home Relief' (EHR) program regulation, 18 NYCRR 370.3 (b) (2), which set an income eligibility cap at 125% of the Federal poverty guidelines. Plaintiffs, low-income families and individuals facing eviction, challenged the amendment's validity and the denial of their applications. While the Supreme Court declared the amendment invalid, the Appellate Division modified this, ruling that the amendment itself was not irrational. However, the Appellate Division found the New York State Department of Social Services' (DSS) interpretation and application of the income test—using prospective income rather than income at the time of the emergency—to be arbitrary and capricious. The court affirmed the remand of the cases, directing re-evaluation of eligibility based on a reasonable computation of income during the emergency period.

Emergency Home ReliefAdministrative LawRegulatory InterpretationPoverty GuidelinesEviction PreventionHomelessnessIncome EligibilityArbitrary and CapriciousDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Propane Gas Ass'n v. United States Department of Transportation

This case involves a challenge by plaintiffs National Propane Gas Association, Northwest Butane Gas Co., and Huffhines Gas, Inc. against the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA). The plaintiffs sought to stay and enjoin the enforcement of RSPA's "Final Rule" and its interpretation of the "Attendance Regulation," alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Both regulations pertain to safety requirements for cargo tank motor vehicles transporting liquefied compressed gases, particularly concerning emergency discharge control systems and operator presence during unloading. The court sided with the defendants, upholding both the Final Rule and RSPA's interpretation of the Attendance Regulation. The ruling affirmed that RSPA's actions were within its statutory authority, were not arbitrary or capricious, and complied with the RFA, based on reasoned decision-making in response to widespread industry noncompliance and potential safety risks.

Regulatory challengeadministrative lawhazardous materialscargo tanksliquefied gasespropanepublic safetyemergency discharge controloperator attendanceRSPA
References
23
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Federal Emergency Management Agency

This case addresses the legality of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) 'deferred-maintenance policy' used to deny disaster relief applications after Hurricane Dolly. Plaintiffs alleged that FEMA's policy, which was not published or subjected to notice-and-comment rulemaking, unlawfully restricted eligibility for assistance. The court found that FEMA's policy significantly narrowed the criteria for 'disaster-related' damage beyond existing statutes and regulations. It also determined that FEMA applied this policy in a binding manner, impacting over 50% of the denials. Consequently, the court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, ruling that the deferred-maintenance policy was a substantive rule requiring proper administrative procedures.

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)Disaster ReliefFEMAHurricane DollyUnpublished RulesDeferred Maintenance PolicySummary JudgmentSubstantive RulemakingNotice and CommentEligibility Criteria
References
84
Showing 1-10 of 10,866 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