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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rattikin Title Co. v. Grievance Committee of State Bar of Texas

The Rattikin Title Company appealed a temporary injunction that barred it from preparing legal instruments or providing legal advice in transactions where it was not a direct party or agent. The Grievance Committee of the State Bar of Texas initiated the injunction, asserting that these activities constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, upholding the trial court's finding that the title company's actions, even if inadvertent due to intertwined operations with a law firm, were illegal under Texas law. The court reiterated that the 'practice of law' includes conveyancing and advising on legal instruments for consideration, and such acts by a corporation are enjoinable. The decision emphasized that the preservation of status quo in injunction cases involving law violations means ceasing the unlawful acts. The court also upheld the trial judge's discretion in not enjoining the title company from certain actions for mortgage loan companies, classifying it as a novel legal question.

Unauthorized Practice of LawTemporary InjunctionTitle InsuranceLegal InstrumentsCorporate Practice of LawAttorney-Client RelationshipGrievance CommitteeState BarTexas LawAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 03-04-00342-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2005

First American Title Insurance Company and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

First American Title Insurance Company and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, foreign title insurers in Texas, challenged the Comptroller's revised interpretation of retaliatory tax calculations. The new interpretation allowed insurers to include only 15% of the premium tax paid, instead of 100%, in determining their financial burden for retaliatory tax purposes, arguing that title agents bore the remaining 85%. The companies claimed this interpretation was incorrect and unconstitutional, leading to significantly higher taxes for foreign insurers. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Comptroller. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding the Comptroller's interpretation reasonable, consistent with the statutes, and constitutional, as it served the legitimate governmental purpose of deterring other states from imposing excessive taxes on Texas-based insurers.

Retaliatory TaxTitle InsurancePremium TaxInsurance LawTax LawStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionAdministrative Law
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

K. R. Playa VI, S. De R.L. De C v. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Title Guaranty De Mexico, S.A. De C v.

This case involves a consolidated appeal over title insurance claims for properties in Mexico. Appellants Citigroup Global Markets Realty Group and K.R. Playa VI challenged a trial court's judgment favoring appellees Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Title Guaranty de Mexico. The dispute centered on whether an exclusion in the title insurance policies, related to K.R. Playa's knowledge of a Mexican expropriation decree affecting the properties, precluded coverage and influenced the damages award. The jury found K.R. Playa knew of the decree for ten properties and awarded zero damages for the remaining six. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings on K.R. Playa's knowledge and the zero damages, and addressing issues concerning expert testimony and state-law claims.

Title InsuranceReal Estate DisputeProperty ValuationBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingTexas Insurance CodeExpropriation DecreeMexican LawInternational PropertyAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. 01-18-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Shakeel Uddin v. Jacqueline K. Cunningham Deputy Receiver of Southern Title Insurance Corporation and Southern Title Insurance Corporation

Appellant Shakeel Uddin appealed a summary judgment granted to Southern Title Insurance Corporation (STIC). Uddin had guaranteed a loan to Nabeel & Amaan Investments, Inc. (NAI), which defaulted, leading to a claim by the lender, Sterling Bank, under a title insurance policy issued by STIC. After paying Sterling and being assigned the loan rights, STIC sued Uddin directly on the guaranty. Uddin argued that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that he had raised material issues of fact on his affirmative defenses. The First District Court of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the statute of limitations was not jurisdictional, STIC's capacity issue was cured by the relation-back doctrine, STIC established its claim, and Uddin had contractually waived his other affirmative defenses.

Guaranty AgreementLoan DefaultTitle InsuranceSubrogationStatute of LimitationsStandingCapacityRelation-Back DoctrineContractual WaiverAffirmative Defenses
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Aiello

Roger and Evelyn Aiello sued Stewart Title Guaranty Company for delayed payment on an agreed judgment stemming from a title defect on their property. The central legal question addressed was whether an insurer's duty of good faith and fair dealing extends beyond the entry of an agreed judgment, which the court affirmed it does. The Aiellos asserted claims including breach of good faith, DTPA, and Insurance Code violations for actions post-judgment. A jury found in favor of the Aiellos on the breach of good faith and contract claims, awarding them actual, exemplary, and attorney's fees. Stewart appealed these findings. The appellate court largely upheld the jury's decision but adjusted the award of attorney's fees and clarified the conditions for appellate attorney's fees, while also affirming the trial court's correct application of res judicata to pre-judgment claims.

Insurance lawBad faithAgreed judgmentBreach of contractDuty of good faith and fair dealingExemplary damagesAttorney's feesTexas Insurance CodeDTPARes judicata
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First American Title Insurance Co. v. Strayhorn

First American Title Insurance Company and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, foreign title insurers doing business in Texas, challenged the Comptroller's revised interpretation of retaliatory tax calculations. Previously, 100% of premium tax was included in the financial burden; the new interpretation reduced this to 15%, shifting 85% responsibility to title agents. Appellants argued this change was incorrect and unconstitutional, leading to increased retaliatory taxes. The district court granted summary judgment for the Comptroller, finding the new interpretation reasonable and constitutional. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Comptroller's interpretation and application of the retaliatory tax scheme were valid and did not violate equal protection.

Title InsuranceRetaliatory TaxPremium TaxTax LawStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawEqual ProtectionConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marino v. Perna

Claimant Marino sued defendant Perna for breach of warranty of title after purchasing a stolen automobile, which led to his son's arrest and the car's seizure. Perna had bought the car from third-party defendant Marshal Locascio at a traffic auction. The court found that Locascio, as a Marshal, was exempt from implied warranty of title under UCC 2-312, and the action against him was also barred by a one-year Statute of Limitations. However, the court ruled in favor of Marino against Perna for breach of warranty of title, awarding $1,200 for the car's value, but denying consequential damages for legal fees due to lack of foreseeability on Perna's part.

breach of warrantywarranty of titlestolen vehicleUniform Commercial CodeStatute of LimitationsMarshal salepublic auctionconsequential damagesautomobile saleimplied warranty
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. McReynolds

Stewart Title Guaranty Company initiated an action in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, seeking a refund for risk rate and retaliatory taxes levied by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance. The chancellor dismissed the claim, ruling that the Tennessee Claims Commission held exclusive jurisdiction over tax refund cases. On appeal, Stewart Title challenged this decision, contending that relevant statutes did not confer jurisdiction to the commission for such claims and that the state constitution mandated review of tax assessments by constitutionally established courts. The appellate court affirmed the chancellor's judgment, interpreting the claims commission act to vest exclusive jurisdiction for all state tax recoveries, excluding those handled by the commissioner of revenue, with the Tennessee Claims Commission. Furthermore, the court systematically addressed and rejected Stewart Title's constitutional arguments concerning the act's scope, due process, separation of powers, and the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, solidifying the commission's role in these matters.

Tax RefundInsurance TaxJurisdictionClaims CommissionChancery CourtStatutory ConstructionConstitutional LawDue ProcessSeparation of PowersAppellate Jurisdiction
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation

The Washington Legal Foundation, along with a Texas attorney and a legal services consumer, challenged the mandatory Texas Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They claimed the program constituted a taking of property without just compensation and compelled financial support for objectionable organizations. The Defendants, including the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and Supreme Court Justices, sought summary judgment, arguing the IOLTA program did not infringe on constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest in providing legal services to the indigent. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest existed and no First Amendment violations occurred. Consequently, all plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Fifth AmendmentFirst AmendmentIOLTA ProgramTaking ClauseFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationSummary JudgmentTexasState BarLegal Services
References
51
Showing 1-10 of 5,546 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