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. W2015-00067-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2015

Baxter Bailey Investments LLC v. APL Limited Inc.

Plaintiffs, a debt collection company and a motor carrier, sued defendant APL Limited Inc. in general sessions court to collect unpaid transportation and delivery charges. Defendant moved for summary judgment and sanctions, arguing it was not the proper defendant. Plaintiffs voluntarily nonsuited, but the general sessions court awarded defendant attorney's fees as sanctions. The circuit court affirmed the award, albeit modifying the amount. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the general sessions court lacked the statutory and inherent authority to impose attorney's fees as sanctions, noting that the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (including Rule 11) do not apply to general sessions courts, and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act was not properly raised.

Appellate ProcedureSanctionsAttorney's FeesGeneral Sessions Court JurisdictionInherent Authority of CourtsAmerican RuleTennessee Consumer Protection ActLimited JurisdictionAbuse of Discretion StandardDe Novo Review
References
83
Case No. 13-0096
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

Tenet Hospitals Limited, a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Providence Memorial Hospital, and Michael D. Compton, M.D. v. Elizabeth Rivera, as Next Friend for M.R.

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the Medical Liability Act's ten-year statute of repose. Petitioners, Tenet Hospitals Limited and Michael D. Compton, M.D., sought summary judgment arguing the statute barred a medical negligence claim filed by Elizabeth Rivera on behalf of M.R. The alleged negligence occurred in 1996, and the suit was filed in 2011, five years after the 2003 repose statute's 2006 deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding the statute unconstitutional as applied to M.R. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Rivera, acting as M.R.'s next friend, failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing the claim within the three-year grace period afforded by the statute. The Court also found the retroactivity challenge failed due to the compelling public interest in the Medical Liability Act and the sufficient grace period provided. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of ReposeOpen Courts ProvisionRetroactivityDue DiligenceMinor's ClaimConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas Supreme CourtHealthcare Liability
References
26
Case No. 03-02-00439-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2003

Texas Lottery Commission and Linda Cloud, Executive Director v. Scientific Games International, Inc. and Pollard Banknote Limited

The Texas Lottery Commission introduced a new policy in February 2002 to consider a vendor's anticipated economic impact on the state when awarding contracts over $100,000. Scientific Games International, Inc. and Pollard Banknote Limited, out-of-state companies manufacturing instant-ticket games, challenged this policy, arguing the Commission lacked the statutory authority to implement it. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of SGI and Pollard. The appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that the Texas Lottery Commission is not authorized to consider a vendor's economic impact on the state in its procurement decisions, emphasizing that procurement should be based on quality and price to promote competition.

Procurement LawState ContractsEconomic Impact PolicyTexas Lottery CommissionGovernmental AuthorityStatutory InterpretationCompetitive BiddingSummary JudgmentStanding DoctrineAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 14-02-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2006

Lennar Corporation, Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Limited, and Lennar Homes of Texas Sales and Marketing, Limited, D/B/A Village Builders v. Great American Insurance Company, American Dynasty Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Markel American Insurance Company Gerling America Insurance Company, RLI Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and Westchester Fire Ins Company

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute between homebuilder Lennar Corporation and its CGL insurance carriers over damages caused by defective stucco (EIFS) applied to homes. The court analyzed whether negligently defective construction constitutes an "occurrence" and distinguished between covered costs (repairing actual water damage) and non-covered costs (preventative EIFS replacement, overhead). While affirming summary judgment for several insurers due to unmet self-insured retentions based on individual homes as separate occurrences, the court reversed for American Dynasty and Markel, citing unresolved factual issues regarding "known loss" and policy conditions. Lennar's extra-contractual claims against American Dynasty were ultimately denied for lack of proven damages or statutory violations.

Insurance Policy InterpretationConstruction DefectsCommercial Liability InsuranceProperty Damage ClaimsStucco DefectsDuty to IndemnifySelf-Insured RetentionsKnown Loss PrincipleSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Law
References
96
Case No. 03-10-00430-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2012

Nucor Steel - Texas, a Division of Nucor Corporation v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Oncor Electric Delivery Company and Texas Energy Future Holdings Limited Partnership

Texas Energy Future Holdings Partnership (Texas Energy) sought to acquire Oncor Electric Delivery Company (Oncor), a regulated electric utility. The Public Utility Commission (Commission) approved the acquisition, determining it was in the public interest, a decision upheld by the district court. Nucor Steel - Texas (Nucor) appealed, challenging the Commission's statutory interpretation regarding the scope of its public-interest analysis and its evidentiary rulings. Nucor argued the Commission improperly limited evidence to only direct effects on Oncor and that the decision lacked substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, deferring to the Commission's reasonable interpretation of its authority in a deregulated electricity market and finding its evidentiary rulings and public-interest determination supported by substantial evidence.

Public Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityUtility AcquisitionPublic Interest AnalysisStatutory InterpretationDeregulation of Electricity MarketEvidentiary RulingsDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceStipulation Agreement
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 1998

In re the Claim of Peabody

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed on September 9, 1998, which ruled that the claimant was not entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits. This denial was based on Labor Law § 591 (5), a 1996 amendment that limits unemployment benefits when a claimant also receives workers' compensation benefits exceeding their average weekly wage. The claimant contended that the statutory limitation should consider the pre-injury weekly wage used for workers' compensation. However, the Board, and subsequently the court, found no textual basis to interpret 'average weekly wage' in Labor Law § 591 (5) differently from its definition in Labor Law former § 590 (2). Consequently, the Board's conclusion was affirmed.

Unemployment benefitsWorkers' compensation offsetStatutory interpretationAverage weekly wage calculationBenefit eligibilityLabor Law § 591(5)Appeal Board decisionJudicial reviewAffirmed decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Complaint of Wepfer Marine, Inc. for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability

Wepfer Marine, Inc. filed a petition to limit liability after Jose Ramon Gonzalez was injured during barge demolition. Gonzalez and his wife, along with Liberty Mutual, sued Wepfer in state court, leading Wepfer to seek federal limitation of liability. Claimants moved to dismiss the federal action, citing lack of admiralty jurisdiction due to the barge's 'dead ship' status and untimeliness of Wepfer's petition. The court granted dismissal for the main barge, ET-715, ruling it was a 'dead ship' withdrawn from navigation. However, it denied dismissal concerning the crane barge, finding potential causation through a broken crane cable, thereby retaining jurisdiction for that aspect. The court also found Wepfer's petition timely, as prior correspondence from claimants did not constitute sufficient written notice to trigger the statutory six-month filing period.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawLimitation of Liability ActVessel StatusDead Ship DoctrineAdmiralty JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)TimelinessWritten Notice of Claim
References
37
Case No. 09-16-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2018

Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency v. Ralph J. Gillis, Gillis Borchardt & Barthel LLP, Obain Associates Limited and the Jasper/VPPA Settlement Trust

This appeal concerns Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency's (SRMPA) lawsuit against its former attorney, Ralph J. Gillis, and his firm, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and fraud related to the 'Nisco Deal' and the 'Cambridge Project' energy initiatives. SRMPA accused Gillis of self-dealing and undisclosed personal financial gains from these projects. The trial court, following a jury verdict, denied SRMPA's claims regarding the Nisco Deal due to the statute of limitations, but awarded damages for Gillis's breach of fiduciary duty concerning the Cambridge Project. SRMPA appealed the denial of equitable relief, the limitations finding, and the quantum of damages, while Gillis, Obain, and the Jasper/VPPA Settlement Trust filed cross-appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment across all contested issues.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent ConcealmentEnergy ProjectsAttorney MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsEquitable ReliefDisgorgementConstructive TrustDamagesRespondeat Superior
References
59
Case No. 14-09-01046-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2010

950 Corbindale, L.P., 950 Corbindale Management, L.L.C., 9041 Katy Freeway, Ltd., 9041 Katy Freeway Management, L.L.C., 9039 Holdings Management, L.L.C., Lester Allison, and Richard Plessala v. Kotts Capital Holdings Limited Partnership and Kotts Captial Holdings, Inc.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal concerning the denial of a motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. The appellees, Kotts Capital Holdings, had sought declaratory relief regarding partnership agreements. Appellants argued that the dispute fell within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement, despite a clause limiting awards to 'compensatory damages only.' The appellate court found that this limitation applied only to the type of damages, not the arbitrator's authority to grant declaratory relief. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order, compelling arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementMotion to CompelDeclaratory JudgmentContract InterpretationPartnership DisputeScope of ArbitrationAppellate ProcedureTexas LawRemandInterlocutory Appeal
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 7,218 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