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. 03-04-00485-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2008

MHI Partnership, Ltd. v. DH Real Estate Investment Company D/B/A DH Investment Company

MHI Partnership, Ltd. appealed a trial court judgment concerning its breach-of-contract action against DH Real Estate Investment Company. The dispute arose from a real estate development contract where MHI terminated the agreement, alleging a material breach by DH for failing to provide required backup cost information three weeks before closing, despite a "time is of the essence" clause. The trial court denied MHI's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury found no material breach by DH, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The appellate court found that MHI did not conclusively establish a material breach as a matter of law, noting that boilerplate "time is of the essence" clauses do not automatically make every deadline material, and considering factors such as DH's offers to cure and testimony from MHI's own executives regarding the deadlines' importance. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's finding that DH's conduct did not constitute a material breach justifying contract termination.

Contract LawReal EstateBreach of ContractTime is of the EssenceMaterial BreachDirected VerdictJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewContract TerminationProperty Development
References
26
Case No. 02-11-00060-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2012

Amos McAlister A/K/A A.L. McAlister, Individually and D/B/A Albam Investments and Barbara McAlister, Individually and D/B/A Albam Investments v. Hatbreeze Properties, L.L.C.

Amos and Barbara McAlister, doing business as Albam Investments, appealed a trial court judgment that awarded Hatbreeze Properties, L.L.C. damages for their breach of a commercial lease agreement. The McAlisters argued that Hatbreeze breached the lease by not maintaining insurance, making the damages provision an unenforceable penalty, and disputed calculations for utilities and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment regarding the breach of contract, fraud, and fraudulent inducement claims. However, the court found Hatbreeze's initial demand for damages excessive and noted the trial court erred by not crediting the McAlisters' security deposit. Consequently, the judgment was modified to remove attorney's fees and reduce the awarded damages by the security deposit, then affirmed as modified.

Breach of Commercial LeaseSummary JudgmentFraud ClaimsFraudulent InducementContract DamagesAttorney's FeesSecurity DepositAppellate ReviewTexas Property LawMitigation of Damages
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Telenor East Invest AS v. Altimo Holdings & Investments Ltd.

In this securities case, Telenor East Invest AS (Telenor East) sued Altimo Holdings & Investments Limited and other entities (Alfa Group) for alleged insider trading, illegal tender offer, and misleading disclosure statements related to their purchase of shares in VimpelCom. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint or compel arbitration. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration, ruling the claims were outside the arbitration agreement's scope. The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court dismissed the Sections 13(e), 10(b), and 14(e) claims due to insufficient pleading, but allowed the Sections 13(d) and 14(d) claims to proceed.

Securities FraudInsider TradingTender OfferDisclosure ViolationsMotion to DismissArbitration AgreementPSLRARule 9(b)Exchange ActVimpelCom
References
53
Case No. 08-03-00001-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2004

Wil-Roye Investment Co. II and Renewable Investments, Inc. v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA

Wil-Roye Investment Co. II and Renewable Investments, Inc. (Appellants) appealed a 'take nothing judgment' in favor of Washington Mutual Bank (Appellee). The case involved a factoring business relationship and allegations of negligent misrepresentation and fraud against Washington Mutual Bank, formerly Midland American Bank (MAB). The trial court found MAB negligently misrepresented information about a client, Riley Drilling, but determined that Appellants' losses were caused by a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the Holders and their companies, and the negligence of Appellants' agents, rather than by MAB. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding findings on justifiable reliance and causation. The appellate court also addressed and rejected Appellants' claims regarding the denial of summary judgment, the extension of scheduling deadlines, and adverse inferences drawn from Fifth Amendment assertions.

Factoring BusinessNegligent MisrepresentationFraudulent InvoicesFifth Amendment PrivilegeAdverse InferenceJustifiable RelianceCausationAgency RelationshipScheduling OrderContinuance
References
39
Case No. No. E2015-01053-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2015

Beacon4, LLC v. I & L Investments, LLC

This case involves a contract dispute between Beacon4, LLC, a contractor, and I & L Investments, LLC, an owner, over the construction of a retail store in Blountville, Tennessee. Beacon4 sued I & L for violating the Prompt Pay Act and breaching the site contract, seeking to enforce a mechanics' and materialmen's lien for unpaid retainage and disputed change orders. I & L counterclaimed, alleging Beacon4 violated the Tennessee Contractor’s Licensing Act by circumventing its monetary limit and willfully exaggerating its lien claim. The trial court sided with Beacon4, awarding damages, interest, and attorney's fees due to I & L's bad faith. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings in most respects, corrected a typographical error in the interest award, and remanded for a determination of Beacon4's appellate attorney's fees.

Contract DisputeConstruction LawPrompt Pay ActContractor LicensingMechanics' LienRetainage DisputeChange OrdersBad FaithAttorney's FeesAppellate Review
References
78
Case No. 08-17-00189-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2019

Robert G. Houle v. Casco Investments, Inc. and Jose Luis Casillas JLC Ventures, Inc.

Robert G. Houle appealed several trial court orders after Casco Investments, Inc. sued him, and he countersued Casco, Jose Luis Casillas, and JLC Ventures, Inc. The dispute arose from a failed real estate investment and renovation project involving the Pershing Property, which Houle and Casillas orally agreed to purchase and renovate, later forming an LLC. Houle alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unjust enrichment by Casillas, who allegedly stopped funding renovations and foreclosed on the property without Houle's knowledge. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the actual fraud claim but reversed and remanded the claims for breach of fiduciary duty, implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and constructive fraud, finding sufficient evidence to raise factual questions on these issues.

Real Estate InvestmentRenovation ProjectPartnership DisputeBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConstructive FraudWrongful ForeclosureSummary Judgment ReviewAppellate Court
References
147
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2002

Wil-Roye Investment Co. v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA

This case involves an appeal by Wil-Roye Investment Co. II and Renewable Investments (Appellants) against Washington Mutual Bank, affirming a take-nothing judgment from a bench trial. Appellants suffered significant financial losses from a factoring business due to fraudulent invoices generated by Key Commercial Investments, Inc. (KCI) and Key Funding Group (KFG), who acted as their agents. Appellants sued Washington Mutual Bank (formerly MAB), alleging common law fraud, conspiracy, and negligence, specifically citing a negligent misrepresentation by MAB's president, John Grist, regarding a factoring client, Riley Drilling Company. The trial court found Grist's representation negligent but not fraudulent, and crucially, determined that Appellants' losses were primarily caused by the internal fraudulent scheme within their factoring business and their agents' negligence, not by the bank. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, addressing issues related to summary judgment denial, scheduling order modifications, adverse inferences from Fifth Amendment assertions, and the lack of a special relationship or justifiable reliance on MAB's statements.

Factoring BusinessNegligent MisrepresentationFraudulent InvoicesAgency RelationshipFifth Amendment PrivilegeSummary Judgment DenialScheduling Order ModificationSpecial Relationship DoctrineJustifiable RelianceCausation (Legal)
References
47
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. 10-93-176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 1994

Bill R. Bryant v. 319 Investment Fund, Ltd.

Appellant Bill R. Bryant and Appellee 319 Investment Fund, Ltd. filed a joint motion to dismiss their appeal with prejudice. They informed the court that the underlying dispute had been compromised and settled. The Tenth Court of Appeals granted their request and dismissed the appeal.

Appellate ProcedureDismissalSettlementJoint MotionCompromiseTexas Appeals CourtCivil Dispute
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tyson v. ASSOCIATES INVESTMENT COMPANY

Associates Investment Company initiated a lawsuit against Kenneth Ray Tyson to recover an alleged balance on a $2,300 note. Tyson counter-sued, alleging usury, Anti-Trust Statute violations, and insurance overcharges, naming Morris Robinson Motor Company, Emmco Insurance Company, and Associates Investment Company (Indiana) as cross-defendants. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of Associates was initially granted, but after further proceedings, including a jury trial, a new trial was ordered. This appellate decision reversed the summary judgments against Associates Investment Company (Texas) and Emmco Insurance Company (Indiana), remanding the cause for further proceedings due to unresolved issues of usury and anti-trust violations. However, the dismissal of Associates Investment Company (Indiana) for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed.

UsurySummary JudgmentAnti-Trust LawsConsumer FraudChattel MortgageInstallment NoteContract DisputeVehicle RepossessionCross-ActionAppellate Procedure
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 5,003 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