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. M2009-02442-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Estate of David Holt Ralston, by John A. Ralston, Personal Representative v. Fred R. Hobbs

The personal representative of David Holt Ralston's estate filed an action to rescind twelve deeds executed by Fred R. Hobbs, the decedent's attorney-in-fact, without the decedent's knowledge and for no consideration. The properties were conveyed to Hobbs, his mother, and his daughter. The personal representative alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court rescinded the conveyances for properties still owned by Hobbs and awarded monetary damages for properties transferred to innocent third parties. On appeal, Hobbs challenged the personal representative's standing, statute of limitations, the finding of fiduciary duty breach, and damage calculation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on all grounds, finding the personal representative had standing, the action was timely filed, and Hobbs breached his fiduciary duty by making unauthorized gifts not in line with the principal's gifting history.

Fiduciary DutyPower of AttorneyReal Property ConversionStatute of LimitationsDeed RescissionMonetary DamagesAppellate ReviewEstate LawUndue InfluenceAttorney-in-Fact Breach
References
32
Case No. 03-19-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2020

Mary Catherine Person v. Martha Pyron

This case concerns a property dispute between next-door neighbors, Mary Catherine Person and Martha Pyron, over a strip of land and the placement of a fence. Person claimed adverse possession of the land and sought an injunction to remove Pyron's fence. Pyron counterclaimed for trespass, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the property boundary. The dispute originated from the successive erection of three fences, with previous owners of Pyron's lot allowing Person's use of the disputed strip. The district court granted Pyron's motion for summary judgment, denied Person's, and established the property line based on a 2018 survey, ordering Person to remove encroachments. The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Person failed to prove continuous hostile adverse possession for the statutory ten-year period, as her initial use was permissive and did not become adverse until 2016 or 2017.

Adverse PossessionProperty DisputeBoundary LineSummary JudgmentTrespassInjunctive ReliefReal PropertyFence DisputeTexas LawAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1963

Graham v. Morris

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment rendered for plaintiffs Dillard C. Morris and Jerry Morris following a collision between Jeff Graham's truck and Morris's tractor-trailer in Garza County, Texas. The jury found the truck driver negligent in multiple respects, proximately causing personal injuries to Jerry Morris and property damage, and found no contributory negligence by Morris. On appeal, defendants raised points concerning refusal of a trial amendment, an emergency defense, wording of jury issues, and improper jury argument, all of which were overruled. However, the appellate court found the jury's awards for Jerry Morris's personal injuries and future medical expenses to be excessive. The court mandated a remittitur of $22,000. Upon Jerry Morris filing the remittitur, the modified judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

CollisionProperty DamagePersonal InjuryNegligenceContributory NegligenceProximate CauseEmergency DoctrineTrial AmendmentJury InstructionsJury Argument
References
10
Case No. 07-10-0486-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2011

the City of Lubbock, by and Through the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool, as Subrogee v. Lester Payne, Individually and D/B/A Ponderosa Properties and Jarred Pierson and Diana Venice Pierson

A Lubbock police officer, Jarred Pierson, was injured while on duty and received workers' compensation benefits from the City of Lubbock. The City, acting as subrogee, intervened in Pierson's personal injury lawsuit against Ponderosa Apartments, the property owner where the injury occurred. Pierson subsequently non-suited his claims with prejudice, leading Ponderosa to obtain a dismissal of the City's subrogation claims. The City appealed, contending that its statutory subrogation rights should not be extinguished by the employee's voluntary dismissal. The Court of Appeals agreed, emphasizing that once a subrogee's rights are established by payment, they are not defeated by the subrogor's subsequent actions if the tortfeasor knew of the subrogee's claim. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation ClaimDismissal of ClaimsNon-suit with PrejudiceAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier RightsThird-Party LiabilityReal Party in InterestSettlement ImpactRemand for Proceedings
References
21
Case No. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. 03-15-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2015

California Insurance Guarantee Association, Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc.

The appellants, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (OPCIGA), and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA), collectively "Guaranty Associations," are appealing a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellee, Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc. ("Hill Bros."). The suit was filed on March 31, 2009, alleging Hill Bros. failed to reimburse the Guaranty Associations for payments of workers' compensation benefits and claim handling expenses within the deductible limits of a policy issued by the insolvent Legion Insurance Company ("Legion"). The District Court granted summary judgment to Hill Bros. based on the statute of limitations, ruling that the cause of action accrued on April 1, 2002. The Guaranty Associations argue that the accrual date is incorrect, as their statutory obligations had not been triggered, payments had not been made, and demand for reimbursement had not occurred by that date. They also contend that their compliance with Pennsylvania law (the "Pennsylvania Act") in seeking reimbursement through Legion in Liquidation constitutes a mitigating circumstance for any delay, making reasonableness a fact question. Furthermore, they assert the policy was a continuing contract, and the statute of limitations should not have accrued until full performance on April 28, 2009. Alternatively, they argue that claims for deductible payments made within four years of filing suit (March 31, 2005) are not barred.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Guaranty AssociationStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeductible ReimbursementInsolvencyInsurance PolicyContinuing ContractPennsylvania ActTravis County
References
21
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vullo v. Sheets (In Re Sheets)

The debtors, James and Irene Sheets, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and exempted their two pre-petition personal injury actions under New York State law. After the lawsuits settled post-petition, the trustee initiated an adversary proceeding to claim the proceeds as property of the bankruptcy estate. The court determined that because the personal injury actions were validly exempted from the estate at the commencement of the case, their proceeds did not subsequently become estate property. Citing legal precedent, the decision emphasized that exempted property and its resulting proceeds revert to the debtors' control, not the trustee's. Consequently, the trustee's application for a turnover order seeking these personal injury recoveries was denied.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7 BankruptcyProperty ExemptionsPersonal Injury ProceedsBankruptcy EstateAdversary ProceedingTurnover OrderNew York Exemption LawDebtor RightsPost-Petition Settlements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Appointment of a Guardian of Person & Property of Spingarn

Claire Spingarn, a 95-year-old woman with substantial assets, faced a guardianship petition initiated by her son and daughter under Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law, seeking the daughter's appointment as guardian. Claire, opposing her daughter's appointment due to long-standing antipathy, retained her own counsel. The court ultimately appointed a non-family member as guardian on June 6, 1994, tailoring the order to Claire's personal and property-management needs. This opinion addresses the reasonableness of the legal fees requested by the petitioners' attorneys, citing concerns about the amount, billing methods, and excessive hours. The court found many billed hours unnecessary, duplicative, and not the responsibility of Claire Spingarn, consequently reducing the legal fee to $32,500.

GuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Legal FeesAttorney CompensationReasonable FeesElder LawFee ReductionCourt EvaluatorFiduciary DutiesBilling Practices
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 6,053 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