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. 03-14-00650-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2014

Wesley Spears and Renee Jacobs v. Falcon Pointe Community Homeowner's Association

This is an appeal initiated by homeowners Wesley Spears and Renee Jacobs against Falcon Pointe Community Homeowners' Association. The dispute arose after the homeowners extended their fence's height without obtaining prior approval, violating the Association's rules. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Association, ruling that the

Homeowners' AssociationCovenant ViolationFence HeightSummary JudgmentAppellate BriefDeclaratory Judgment ActionDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Motion for ContinuanceRecusal MotionTrial Court Judgment
References
47
Case No. E2009-01497-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2010

Berkeley Park Homeowners Association, Inc. v. John Tabor

Berkeley Park Homeowners Association and Southern Traditions Partners (collectively Berkeley Park) initiated contempt proceedings against John Tabor and Tabor Construction, Inc. (collectively Tabor) to enforce a 2006 mediated settlement agreement. Berkeley Park alleged multiple violations of the agreement regarding house construction in a subdivision, while Tabor argued a new 2007 agreement superseded the prior one. The trial court sided with Berkeley Park, finding no superseding agreement and holding Tabor in violation of the original agreement, awarding damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the evidence supported the findings that no new agreement was formed, Tabor breached the mediated settlement, Berkeley Park acted reasonably, and the award of fees was appropriate. The case involved disputes over architectural approvals, material submissions, payment of dues, hiring a licensed architect, and landscaping plans.

real estate disputehomeowners associationconstruction lawbreach of contractmediated settlementcontempt proceedingsinjunctive reliefproperty covenantsarchitectural controlattorney's fees
References
20
Case No. 03-21-00543-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2023

Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Rob Roy Homeowners Association, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between Jeffrey Wayne Phillips and the Rob Roy Homeowners Association (HOA) over unpaid assessments and fees. Phillips appealed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the HOA, which included awards for damages, fees, and judicial foreclosure. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling on the HOA's power to assess fines and Phillips' affirmative defenses, but reversed and remanded the judicial foreclosure claim due to insufficient evidence that the HOA properly perfected its lien. The court also reversed and remanded the award of attorney's fees, deeming the conditional appellate fees improper and requiring reconsideration of trial fees. The remainder of the judgment was affirmed.

Property LawHomeowners AssociationUnpaid AssessmentsSummary JudgmentJudicial ForeclosureAttorney's FeesRestrictive CovenantsStatute of LimitationsQuasi-EstoppelHomestead Defense
References
37
Case No. 13-17-00691-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

David Atkinson v. Sunchase IV Homeowners Association, Inc. and Board

David Atkinson, a condominium owner, appealed a final judgment in favor of Sunchase IV Homeowners Association, Inc. and Board. Atkinson raised six issues, including complaints about utility payment as common expenses, the jury's failure to find breach of contract or fiduciary duty, the trial court's failure to rule on limitations on the board's powers, the distribution of lawsuit settlement funds, the granting of attorney's fees to the Association, and the creation of preferential parking rights. The appellate court overruled Atkinson's first, second, third, fourth, and sixth issues, largely due to waiver or insufficient legal argument. However, the court sustained Atkinson's fifth issue, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the Association under both the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act and the property code. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment regarding attorney's fees and affirmed the trial court's judgment in all other respects.

Condominium LawHomeowners AssociationBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesProperty CodeAppellate ProcedureFactual SufficiencyWaiver
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilchester West Concerned Homeowners LDEF, Inc. v. Wilchester West Fund, Inc.

This case addresses a dispute between a homeowners' organization, Wilchester West Concerned Homeowners LDEF, Inc. (WWCH), and several homeowners' associations along with a recreational club. WWCH challenged the trial court's summary judgment which favored the Wilchester West Fund, Inc., Wilchester Club, and Wilchester Owners Committee. The central issue was the validity of amended deed restrictions that mandated homeowner membership in the Wilchester Club and increased annual assessments for its recreational facilities. WWCH contended the amendments lacked proper authority and involved material non-disclosures. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the validity of the deed restriction amendments and the homeowners' associations' discretionary authority in entering into the Use Agreement.

Deed RestrictionsHomeowners AssociationDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentProperty RightsOrganizational StandingAmendment ValidityContract AuthorityNon-Profit CorporationTexas Property Code
References
27
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05204 [186 AD3d 1679]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2020

Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Half Moon Bay Mar. Condominium v. Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Assn., Inc.

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by the Board of Managers of Half Moon Bay Marina Condominium and Maria Elena DiBella against the Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Association, Inc. The dispute arose over the voting rights of Marina directors on the HOA Board, which the HOA Board sought to restrict. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, ruled in favor of the petitioners, compelling the HOA Board to allow unrestricted voting. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, determining that the HOA's bylaws regarding voting rights were ambiguous. The court found that extrinsic evidence, including the HOA Board's historical practice, supported the interpretation that all directors had an unrestricted right to vote on all HOA matters.

Bylaws InterpretationVoting RightsCondominium LawHomeowners AssociationCPLR Article 78Contract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceBoard of DirectorsAppellate ReviewAmbiguity
References
11
Case No. E2007-01917-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2008

Billy Walls dba B.S. Walls Construction v. Jeffrey S. Conner

This case involves an appeal stemming from a construction dispute where Billy Walls dba B.S. Walls Construction (Contractor) sued Jeffrey S. Conner and Tresia Conner (Homeowners) for unpaid construction work, and Homeowners counterclaimed alleging substandard workmanship. After the general sessions court dismissed Contractor's claim and awarded Homeowners $15,000, Contractor appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court sanctioned Contractor for failing to comply with discovery requests regarding expert witnesses, precluding his experts from testifying, and upheld the qualification of Homeowners' expert. Subsequently, the circuit court dismissed Contractor's claims and entered a $55,000 judgment against him. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the imposition of discovery sanctions or the admission of expert testimony.

Appellate ReviewDiscovery SanctionsExpert Witness ExclusionAbuse of DiscretionTrial Court JudgmentAffirmed DecisionBreach of ContractSubstandard WorkmanshipContinuance DenialRule 26
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. ADJ8075448
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

ALEX ROBLES vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a trial judge's award in favor of applicant Alex Robles against Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC sought reconsideration, asserting that crucial testimony was omitted from the trial record. The WCAB ordered transcription of all trial testimony to ensure a full and fair adjudication of SCGC's petition. This action was necessary to allow the Board further study of the factual and legal issues involved.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEGoing and Coming RuleMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceTrial TestimonyWCAB Rule 10740Transcript TranscriptionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,922 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