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. 03-02-00403-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2003

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case involves an appeal concerning sanctions imposed by the Motor Vehicle Board against Randy Pretzer, Scott Bossier, and Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. (collectively "Bossier") for violations of the Texas Motor Vehicle Code, specifically fraudulent practices that led to $180,000 in civil penalties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's authority to sanction non-licensees for new vehicle sales violations under section 4.06(a)(5). However, it reversed the district court's finding of Board jurisdiction over used vehicle sales violations of section 4.06(a)(5) occurring before June 8, 1995. Additionally, the Court reversed the Board's power to prospectively limit Pretzer's employment in the motor vehicle industry. The case was remanded to the district court for redetermination of civil penalties consistent with the opinion, while Bossier's other arguments regarding notice, standard of proof, and constitutional challenges were overruled.

Motor Vehicle Code ViolationsFraudulent PracticesCivil PenaltiesStatutory AuthorityAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUsed Vehicle SalesNew Vehicle SalesLicense RevocationDue Process
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case concerns an appeal by Randy Pretzer, Scott Bossier, and Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. d/b/a Bossier Country (collectively, "Bossier") against sanctions imposed by the Motor Vehicle Board and Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation ("Board"). The Board had imposed civil penalties for violations of sections 4.06(a)(5) and 4.06(a)(6) of the Texas Motor Vehicle Code. The district court affirmed in part, overruled in part, and reversed and remanded in part the Board's final order. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment in part, reversed and rendered in part concerning the Board's power to bar Pretzer from the motor vehicle industry, and remanded the cause for further proceedings regarding the redetermination of civil penalties based on the correct jurisdictional scope of section 4.06(a)(5) for used vehicle sales before June 8, 1995.

Texas Motor Vehicle CodeStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawCivil PenaltiesFraudulent PracticesDealer LicensingNon-licensee SanctionsUsed Vehicle SalesSubstantial Evidence ReviewEqual Protection
References
50
Case No. 03-21-00239-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Star Houston, Inc. and Volvo Car USA, LLC appealed a Final Order of the Motor Vehicle Board. The administrative proceeding involved Star protesting Volvo's termination of its franchise and alleging violations of Occupations Code chapter 2301 by Volvo's Dealer Incentive Programs. Star and Volvo petitioned for judicial review, which was subsequently removed to the Court of Appeals. The court rejected the Board's standing challenge against Volvo's cross-appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusions that Volvo's CSI and SSI programs violated Occupations Code sections 2301.467(a)(1) and 2301.468, upholding that they required adherence to unreasonable sales/service standards and treated dealers unfairly. Additionally, the court rejected Star's claims that other incentive programs violated various statutory provisions. Ultimately, the Motor Vehicle Board's Final Order was affirmed.

Texas Court of AppealsMotor Vehicle BoardFranchise TerminationDealer Incentive ProgramsOccupations CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandingSubstantial Evidence RuleCustomer Satisfaction Index (CSI)
References
38
Case No. 03-99-00265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2000

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves an appeal from a district court judgment concerning an order from the Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation. The dispute originated from Ford's proposed termination of Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc.'s franchise due to alleged abuse of Ford's Competitive Price Assistance (CPA) program, where Metro misrepresented customer names to obtain higher discounts. The Board found good cause for termination but imposed a conditional termination remedy requiring the sale of Metro's dealership. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination for good cause, the refusal to transfer the dealership to Eileen Beard, and the denial of Ford's requested chargeback expenses. However, it reversed and remanded the district court's affirmation of the Board's conditional termination remedy, finding it unlawful.

Franchise TerminationDealer FraudCPA Program AbuseStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawMotor Vehicle BoardEquitable EstoppelGood Cause TerminationAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2003

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The petitioner appealed the dismissal of his CPLR article 78 proceeding, which challenged the Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) revocation of his driver's license. The revocation stemmed from an incident where the petitioner, who reported vision issues due to diabetes, struck a flag person. After failing initial vision tests and subsequently passing with corrective lenses, the petitioner failed a road test, leading to the license revocation. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the DMV had reasonable grounds, based on the accident, the petitioner's statement, and his physician's report, to require a road test, thus supporting the revocation.

driver's licenselicense revocationvision impairmentdiabetesroad test failureadministrative appealCPLR Article 78Vehicle and Traffic Lawreasonable groundsmotor vehicle accident
References
2
Case No. 03-97-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 1998

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Young Chevrolet, Inc. appealed the district court's judgment which affirmed a final order by the Texas Motor Vehicle Board. The Board had granted Jupiter Chevrolet-Geo, Inc.'s application to relocate its dealership, despite Young's protest. Young challenged the Board's jurisdiction, the dismissal of its independent due process claim, alleged procedural irregularities including ex parte communications, and the trial court's exclusion of evidence. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the Board had jurisdiction and its actions were lawful. The court also found no error in the dismissal of Young's due process claim and upheld the trial court's findings regarding the ex parte communications and the exclusion of evidence.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewEx Parte CommunicationDue ProcessAgency JurisdictionMotion for RehearingProcedural IrregularitiesAutomobile DealershipRelocation ApplicationStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. 526927
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

In Matter of Curry v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, petitioner Joseph P. Curry appealed a judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 petition. Curry's driver's license was revoked in 2012 due to a fifth alcohol-related driving offense. His 2017 application for relicensing and a hardship exception was denied by the Department of Motor Vehicles' Driver Improvement Bureau and affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Board. Curry challenged this denial as arbitrary and capricious, citing rehabilitation efforts and medical needs for a license. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, finding the Commissioner's denial was not arbitrary or capricious given Curry's history of multiple relapses, traffic infractions, and an incomplete DWI evaluation, despite his claims of sobriety and medical appointments.

Driver's License RevocationAlcohol-Related OffensesHardship ExceptionCPLR article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardDepartment of Motor VehiclesReissuance DiscretionRehabilitation EffortsMedical Limitations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Plaintiff Svetlana Tikhonova suffered catastrophic injuries in a car accident involving a vehicle driven by Alexey Konovalov, a Russian diplomat immune from direct suit. Tikhonova subsequently filed a claim against Ford Motor Credit Company, the registered owner, and Ford Motor Company, the long-term lessee of the vehicle, under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1) for vicarious liability. The defendants argued that the driver's diplomatic immunity should shield them from liability, citing precedents from workers' compensation and volunteer firefighter cases. However, the court rejected this argument, asserting that there is no public policy rationale or statutory scheme that warrants extending diplomatic immunity to unrelated third parties. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the plaintiff's complaint.

Vicarious LiabilityDiplomatic ImmunityVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Car Owner LiabilityMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPublic PolicyWorkers' Compensation PrecedentFederal Drivers Act
References
17
Case No. 08-18-00165-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2021

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Geraldine Bustillos sued the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, in violation of chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code. The DMV filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that Bustillos failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation or rebut its legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's denial of the plea de novo, concluding that while Bustillos demonstrated temporal proximity between her injury report and termination, she failed to establish a material fact issue regarding pretext or 'but-for' causation. The court found Bustillos's denials of misconduct and claims of inadequate training insufficient to prove retaliatory motive. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, dismissing Bustillos's retaliation claim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationRetaliation ClaimSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Labor CodeEmployment DiscriminationCausal LinkPretextAppellate ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
37
Case No. 03-22-00209-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2023

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Robert Volino appealed a decision by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles denying his application to renew his used-auto dealer license. The Department had recommended denial in December 2021, and after Volino failed to respond, issued a final order on January 18, 2022. Volino's motion for rehearing was denied on March 14, 2022. He then filed a notice of appeal on April 14, 2022. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding that Volino's petition for judicial review was filed thirty-one days after the Department's decision, exceeding the statutory thirty-day deadline for suits against governmental entities.

Appellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewJurisdictional DeadlineGovernmental ImmunityOccupations CodeAdministrative Procedure ActTexas Department of Motor VehiclesLicense RenewalStatutory PrerequisiteTimeliness
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 4,448 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