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. 04-24-00606-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2025

Michael Shalit D/B/A Kimberly Investment Company, Lynzara-Austin Real Estate Management, LLC, as General Partner of Kendall County Development Company, L.P., and as General Partner of Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Robyn Real Estate Investments, L.P., Robyn Utility Investments, L.P., and Robyn Utility Investments Management, LLC v. Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Kendall County Development Company, L.P., Kendall County Utility Company, Inc., Tapatio Springs Utility Holdings, L.P., and Tapatio Springs Hospitality Holdings, L.P.

This memorandum opinion addresses an appeal from a summary judgment granted by the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas. Appellants, collectively known as the Shalit Entities, appealed a summary judgment in favor of Appellees, the Tapatio Entities, which barred the Shalit Entities' counter-claims due to the four-year statute of limitations. The Shalit Entities' claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel, arose from a soured business partnership. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the Shalit Entities failed to sufficiently plead acknowledgment of debt to defeat the limitations defense. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that special exceptions were a prerequisite to summary judgment on limitations grounds and affirmed the severance of claims.

Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractStatutory FraudDeclaratory ReliefBusiness Partnership DisputeReal Estate VentureAppellate ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
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. 13-00-313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2001

Montemayor, Rolando v. Chapa, Rolando, U.S.A., Waste-Management Resources, LLC, and Waste-Management of Texas, Inc., F/D/A U.S.A. Waste of Texas, Inc.

Rolando Montemayor, a temporary employee assigned to Waste Management, was injured in an automobile accident and received worker's compensation benefits through his general employer, Express Personnel Services. He subsequently sued Waste Management and its employee, Rolando Chapa, for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing the borrowed servant and fellow servant doctrines, which bar common-law claims under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Waste Management had the right of control over Montemayor, making him a borrowed servant, and Chapa a co-employee, thus upholding the summary judgment.

worker's compensationsummary judgmentborrowed servant doctrinefellow servant doctrinerespondeat superiortemporary employmentexclusive remedyTexas lawappellate reviewnegligence
References
18
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jordan (Bermuda) Investment Co. v. Hunter Green Investments Ltd.

Plaintiff Jordan (Bermuda) Investment Company, Ltd. (JBIC) brought an action against numerous defendants, including law firm Rosenman & Colin LLP and Investment Management Services, Inc., alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various state law claims. JBIC claimed the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud it of $5 million by inducing an investment in non-existent Class J shares of Beacon, subsequently making unauthorized use of these funds, and failing to provide full compensation upon liquidation. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss for the RICO counts, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish a 'pattern of racketeering activity' due to a lack of both closed-ended and open-ended continuity. With the federal RICO claims dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice, granting the plaintiff leave to replead.

RICOMotion to DismissFraudMail FraudWire FraudRacketeeringPattern of Racketeering ActivityContinuityClosed-Ended ContinuityOpen-Ended Continuity
References
53
Case No. 08-00-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

SCM Management, Inc./Manuela Ortiz v. Ortiz, Manuela/SCM Management, Inc.

Manuela Ortiz, a housekeeper, sued SCM Management, Inc. for wrongful discharge under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act, alleging retaliation for her intent to file a worker's compensation claim due to worsening hand pain. A jury found in favor of Ortiz, awarding damages for lost wages and mental anguish, but the trial court excluded exemplary damages. SCM appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish. Ortiz cross-appealed the denial of exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the findings for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish, but agreed that there was insufficient evidence for exemplary damages.

Worker's CompensationRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawMental AnguishExemplary DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceLost WagesMitigation of DamagesTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
28
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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Investment Properties Management, Inc. v. Montes

Elsa Rosa Chavez De Montes (Montes), a housekeeper for Investment Properties Management, Inc. (IPMI), sustained a job injury in November 1987 and filed a workers' compensation claim. While on temporary total disability, IPMI hired a temporary replacement who was later made permanent. Upon Montes' release to return to work in August 1988, she was informed that her position was no longer available. Montes sued IPMI for wrongful discharge, alleging a violation of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c, due to her pursuing a workers' compensation claim. The jury found that the termination was wrongful and malicious, awarding Montes actual and exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding sufficient legal and factual evidence to support the causal connection between Montes' claim and her discharge, as well as the finding of malicious intent and the assessment of exemplary damages.

Wrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationMalicious DischargeEmployment DiscriminationTexas Workers' Compensation ActCausal ConnectionCircumstantial EvidenceExemplary DamagesJury VerdictAppellate Review
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 3,711 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