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. 06-18-00039-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2018

Suenan Gober v. Bulkley Properties, LLC

Suenan Gober appealed a summary judgment granted against her in favor of Bulkley Properties, LLC, concerning an oral agreement to lease and purchase real estate. Gober had sought a declaratory judgment, alleging Bulkley refused to honor the agreement and was unjustly enriched. Bulkley asserted the claim was barred by the statute of frauds as the agreement was not in writing. The trial court granted summary judgment without allowing Gober to amend her pleadings to address the statute of frauds defense. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by not allowing Gober an opportunity to amend her pleadings to plead an exception to the statute of frauds, such as partial performance, before granting summary judgment.

Declaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentStatute of FraudsOral AgreementReal EstatePartial PerformancePleading AmendmentAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionRemand
References
15
Case No. NO. 14-06-00557-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2008

Douglas K. Brocail v. Detroit Tigers, Inc.

Douglas K. Brocail, a professional baseball player for the Detroit Tigers, sued the Club for injuries to his pitching arm. The Club was granted summary judgment based on federal Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA) preemption, the Michigan Workers Disability Compensation Act (WDCA) exclusive-remedy provision, and Michigan's statute of frauds. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that most of Brocail's claims were either preempted by the LMRA or barred by the WDCA or the Michigan statute of frauds, specifically those relating to medical care and treatment. The court concluded that intentional torts were the only exception to the WDCA's exclusive remedy rule, but claims to which Brocail attempted to apply this exception were barred by the LMRA or the Michigan statute of frauds.

Professional Baseball PlayerSports InjuryElbow InjuryCollective Bargaining AgreementLMRA PreemptionWorker's Disability Compensation ActMichigan Statute of FraudsSummary JudgmentTort ClaimsMedical Negligence
References
53
Case No. 09-08-00184-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2009

American Fluorite, Inc. and Triad Drilling & Supply Co., Inc. v. JB Oilfield, L.L.C.

Appellants, American Fluorite, Inc. and Triad Drilling & Supply Co., Inc., challenged a jury verdict favoring JB Oilfield, L.L.C. on breach of contract claims concerning brokerage commissions for drilling rig sales. GeoSouthern, representing the appellants, contended there was no evidence for the verdict and that the trial court improperly denied a jury instruction on the statute of frauds. The appellate court found that the oral brokerage agreements could theoretically be performed within one year, thus not falling under the statute of frauds, and that GeoSouthern failed to adequately pursue its statute of frauds defense at trial. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed, upholding the jury's finding that GeoSouthern breached its agreements with JB Oilfield to pay commissions on two rig sales.

breach of contractbrokerage agreementstatute of fraudsjury verdictappellate reviewtrial court discretionjury instructioncommission disputeoil and gas equipment salescontract enforceability
References
15
Case No. 04-10-00041-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2011

Dynegy, Inc. v. Terry W. Yates, Individually, and Terry W. Yates, P.C.

Dynegy, Inc. appealed a trial court judgment in favor of Terry W. Yates for fraud stemming from an high-profile oral contract for attorney's fees. Dynegy argued that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the fraud finding and that the oral agreement was barred by the statute of frauds. The appellate court held that the statute of frauds did not apply, as Dynegy's promise to pay was a primary obligation for services rendered. However, the court reversed the trial court's fraud finding due to a lack of evidence that Dynegy's corporate agent had the intent not to perform at the time the oral contract was made. Consequently, the appellate court rendered judgment in favor of Yates on his alternative breach of contract claim, awarding actual damages and attorney's fees.

FraudBreach of ContractAppellate ReviewStatute of FraudsAttorney's FeesCorporate LiabilityCorporate IndemnificationLegal EthicsEvidence SufficiencyOral Contract
References
46
Case No. 03-07-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2009

Richard Joseph v. Tory James, Angela James, Tony Cussimanio and Robert Bullara

Richard Joseph appealed a summary judgment ruling in a case against Tory and Angela James, Tony Cussimanio, and Robert Bullara, involving claims of breach of contract and real estate fraud related to the sale of his home. The trial court had granted the appellees' motion for summary judgment, concluding that no enforceable contract existed due to a failure to satisfy the statute of frauds, as the modifications to the real estate offer form were not properly signed or authorized by the Jameses. Joseph argued on appeal that an enforceable contract did exist and that his fraud claim was valid. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that without a written agreement signed by the Jameses, the contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds, and consequently, the real estate fraud claim also failed.

Real EstateContract DisputeStatute of FraudsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAgency LawReal Estate FraudTexas LawOffer and AcceptanceCounter-offer
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saucedo v. Rheem Manufacturing Co.

Jose Saucedo appealed a summary judgment ruling against him in his claims against Rheem Manufacturing Company and Jaime Loera, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on all claims except for Saucedo's breach of contract claim against Rheem. The court found that Saucedo's employment for an annual salary exempted his contract from the Statute of Frauds, allowing his breach of contract claim to proceed for damages incurred until July 14, 1995. However, the court upheld the summary judgment on defamation due to invited publication and lack of outrageous conduct for emotional distress, and on promissory estoppel and fraud due to the Statute of Frauds.

breach of contractpromissory estoppelfrauddefamationintentional infliction of emotional distresssummary judgment appealemployment at willStatute of Fraudsresume fraudappellate court
References
29
Case No. 13-23-00492-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

Robert S. Alcott III v. 1893 Oil and Gas, Ltd. and ELP2 Minerals, Ltd.

Appellants Robert S. Alcott III, Patricia Brashear, and Katie Lynn Stevenson appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of appellees 1893 Oil and Gas, Ltd. and ELP2 Minerals, Ltd. The dispute centers on mineral interests in Live Oak County, Texas, stemming from a 1922 "Alcott Deed" which appellants claim conveyed an undivided interest in oil, gas, or minerals. Appellees argued the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds, asserting the Alcott Deed lacked an adequate legal description. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Alcott Deed violated the statute of frauds due to an insufficient legal description of the purported mineral interest.

oil and gasmineral rightssummary judgmentstatute of fraudsproperty lawdeed interpretationappellate reviewreal estateTexas lawundivided interest
References
15
Case No. 09-19-00441-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2021

Mary Latona Ward, Independent of the Estate of Eric L. Ward v. Jacob Sponseller

This case involves an appeal from a breach of contract dispute where Jacob Sponseller sued the estate of Eric L. Ward. Sponseller claimed Eric L. Ward breached a verbal agreement to grant him equity in a home if he continued his employment, leading Sponseller to forgo a more lucrative job offer. After Sponseller moved into the home and made improvements, he was laid off before the five-year agreement was complete. The trial court ruled in Sponseller's favor, applying the partial performance exception to the statute of frauds. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Sponseller's continued employment, possession of the property, and valuable improvements were unequivocally referable to the agreement, thereby satisfying the partial performance exception and preventing the statute of frauds from being used to perpetuate fraud.

Breach of ContractStatute of FraudsPartial Performance ExceptionReal Estate AgreementOral Contract EnforcementEmployment DisputeEquitable EnforcementAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceDetrimental Reliance
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2013

New York District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Forde

Plaintiffs, jointly-administered employee benefit plans (Funds), brought an action against Defendants Joseph Olivieri, EMB Contracting Corp., Michael Batalias, Elisavet Batalias, and Michael Brennan, alleging civil RICO and RICO conspiracy statutes violations, breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, and New York common law fraud. The lawsuit stems from a racketeering conspiracy where defendants allegedly embezzled funds by bribing labor representatives and avoiding required contributions. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and a motion to strike, raising arguments concerning the statute of limitations, satisfaction of judgment, and failure to state a claim for RICO conspiracy or common law fraud. The court denied all motions, concluding that the statute of limitations could be equitably tolled due to fraudulent concealment and that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded their claims.

RICOERISAFraudConspiracyMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingFiduciary DutyEmployee Benefit PlansLabor Racketeering
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1984

Klein v. Jamor Purveyors, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning the enforceability of an alleged oral modification to a written corporate shareholders' agreement. The original agreement, between Jack Klein (decedent), Michael Jacobson, and Jamor Purveyors, Inc., stipulated a $55,000 buy-out price for a deceased shareholder's stock. The plaintiff, as executrix of Klein's estate, claimed an oral agreement increased this buy-out price to $155,000. Special Term dismissed the claims, asserting the oral modification was barred by the Statute of Frauds and a clause in the original agreement requiring written modifications. The Appellate Court affirmed this decision, ruling that the alleged oral agreement fell within the Statute of Frauds and that the plaintiff's arguments regarding memoranda, partial performance, and equitable estoppel were insufficient to satisfy the statute or overcome its provisions. The court also upheld the interpretation that the agreement's modification clause precluded oral changes.

oral agreementStatute of Fraudsshareholders' agreementcorporate buy-outcontract modificationpart performanceequitable estoppelAppellate DivisionCPLRGeneral Obligations Law
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 4,386 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