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. 03-10-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2011

the Texas Department of Transportation, and Amadeo Saenz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Director of Texas Department of Transportation v. Sunset Transportation, Inc. MEL Transport, Inc. D/B/A Magnum Transportation And Sunset Prosper, Inc.

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and its executive director appealed a district court order denying their plea to the jurisdiction regarding claims by Sunset Transportation, Inc., MEL Transport, Inc. d/b/a Magnum Transportation, Inc., and Sunset Prosper, Inc. Appellants contended that the claims, brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA), were barred by sovereign immunity. The court found Appellees' APA claims lacked sufficient factual pleading but allowed an opportunity to amend. However, the district court's denial of the plea concerning UDJA claims was affirmed, as some allegations invoked the ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order denying the plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative LawMotor Carrier RegulationFederal PreemptionState Agency AuthorityTransportation LawJurisdictionStatutory ConstructionRegulatory Challenge
References
20
Case No. CIV-88-1404C, CIV-90-481C
Regular Panel Decision

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) initiated the sale of a 369-mile rail line, which threatened the jobs of 226 employees. In response, the United Transportation Union and American Train Dispatchers Association (the Unions) invoked the Railway Labor Act (RLA) § 6, seeking to negotiate labor-protective provisions and preserve the status quo. The district court initially deemed the dispute 'minor' due to CSXT's plausible contractual defense, allowing the sale to proceed while the matter went to arbitration. A special adjustment board subsequently found CSXT's contractual defense unavailing, concluding that existing agreements did not permit the sale without prior bargaining over employee impacts. This court affirmed the board's jurisdiction and its finding, clarifying that the Unions were indeed entitled to status quo preservation during such bargaining, distinguishing its ruling from other circuits that had broadened management prerogative in partial business sales. The case is now remanded to the board to determine the appropriate remedies for the affected union members.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStatus QuoLine SaleArbitrationMajor DisputeMinor DisputeManagement PrerogativeEmployee Protection
References
51
Case No. 14-14-00345-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2015

Albert Lujan D/B/A Texas Wholesale Flower Co. v. Navistar, Inc., Navistar International Corporation, Navistar International Transportation Corp., International Truck and Engine Corporation and Santex Truck Centers, Ltd.

This appeal concerns a lawsuit for damages stemming from the Appellant's purchase of defective trucks from the Appellees. The Appellant, Albert Lujan d/b/a Texas Wholesale Flower Co., alleged breach of express and implied warranties, failure of essential purpose, and economic coercion/duress after the purchased trucks experienced repeated engine failures. The trial court granted the Appellees' motions for summary judgment, finding warranty disclaimers operative, dismissing claims for lack of standing, and striking the Appellant's supporting affidavit as a 'sham' and conclusory. The Appellant argues these rulings were erroneous, contending the disclaimers were invalid, factual issues existed regarding warranty breaches, and the court improperly adjudicated unpresented claims. Additionally, the Appellant challenges the striking of his affidavit and the acceptance of untimely evidence by the trial court.

Breach of WarrantySummary JudgmentEconomic DuressBusiness CoercionProduct LiabilityVehicle DefectsEngine FailureContract LawUniform Commercial CodeAppellate Procedure
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gabourel v. Bouchard Transportation Co.

Plaintiff Thomas Gabourel, chief engineer on the tugboat Morton S. Bouchard, Jr., filed a Jones Act action against Bouchard Transportation Co. and Caddell Dry Dock and Repair Co. after being injured in a tugboat engine explosion on July 2, 1992. The explosion caused extensive damage to the tugboat and was attributed to a rag left in the lubricating oil system. Initially, Bouchard cross-claimed against Caddell, but later sought to amend its answer to include a counterclaim against Gabourel for property damage to the tugboat, alleging his potential negligence. The court, citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13(f) and 15(a), granted Bouchard's motion, finding the counterclaim meritorious, not unduly prejudicial to the plaintiff, and the delay in filing not warranting denial. The decision clarified that a shipowner can assert a negligence cause of action against an employee for property damage.

Jones ActMaritime LawNegligenceCounterclaimFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployer LiabilityEmployee NegligenceProperty DamageTugboat ExplosionAmendment of Pleadings
References
11
Case No. 04-22-00450-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

Reynolds Energy Transport, LLC and Reynolds Transportation, Inc. v. Plains Marketing, L.P., Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., Plains Pipeline, L.P.

This appellate case reviews a trial court's order imposing monetary sanctions against Reynolds Energy Transport, LLC and Reynolds Transportation, Inc. (Appellants) in favor of Plains Marketing, L.P.; Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.; and Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Appellees). The sanctions, totaling $482,895.92, were levied under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 and Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for alleged groundless pleadings, false testimony, and discovery abuses. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion, concluding that many findings lacked evidentiary support, were conclusory, or addressed matters not properly raised in the sanctions motion. The court further determined that Appellees failed to overcome the presumption of good faith regarding Appellants' filings. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's sanctions order, rendering judgment that Appellees take nothing on their motion.

SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure Rule 13Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 10Groundless ClaimsBad FaithDiscovery AbuseSummary JudgmentDue Process
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Decker v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including the United Transportation Union and Local 377, initiated an action in state court against CSX Transport, Inc. (CSXT), alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act's status quo provisions related to CSXT's planned sale of a rail line. CSXT moved for dismissal, contending that the plaintiffs' notice was barred by a national agreement moratorium, Local 377 lacked standing, the carrier held a unilateral right to sell lines, and the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) preempted RLA Section 6. Conversely, plaintiffs asserted that the National Mediation Board had docketed their dispute as major, the sale was a tactic to circumvent RLA provisions, and the moratorium did not apply to them due to local bargaining representation. The court, drawing parallels with Railway Labor Executives’ Association v. Staten Island Railroad Corp., determined that the ICC's authorization of the sale brought the matter under its exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court found itself unable to provide a remedy without interfering with the ICC's order and granted CSXT's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Railway Labor ActStatus Quo ProvisionsMotion to DismissRail Line SaleInterstate Commerce CommissionPreemptionCollective BargainingLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefJurisdiction
References
10
Case No. W2008-00344-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2008

Georgia-Pacific LLC v. Swift Transportation Corporation

This appeal concerns the interpretation of indemnity and insurance provisions within a contract between Georgia-Pacific (G-P) and Swift Transportation Corporation. The agreement outlined Swift Transportation's role in providing vehicles and drivers for G-P, with specific clauses addressing risks, indemnification, and insurance requirements. A dispute arose after a Swift Transportation driver was allegedly injured at a G-P facility due to G-P's negligence, leading to a lawsuit against G-P. G-P sought defense and indemnification from Swift Transportation, but Swift Transportation declined, asserting that the claim was based on G-P's own negligence, which was not covered under their agreement. The trial court sided with Swift Transportation, ruling that it had no duty to indemnify or insure G-P for claims stemming from G-P's own negligence. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed this decision, concluding that the contract did not explicitly require Swift Transportation to indemnify G-P for G-P's own negligent actions, nor did the additional insured provision create such an independent obligation.

Contract interpretationIndemnity clauseInsurance provisionsNegligence liabilityGeorgia lawTennessee Court of AppealsSummary judgmentAdditional insuredSelf-insuranceContractual obligation
References
12
Case No. 03-14-00552-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2015

Raghunath Dass, P.E. v. Texas Board of Professional Engineers

Appellant Raghunath Dass, PE, appeals sanctions imposed by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers (TBPE) for alleged violations of the Texas Engineering Practices Act. Dass asserts the TBPE lacked jurisdiction over the case facts and authority to amend its final order while under judicial review. He argues that the TBPE's amended final order is void because the agency modified a decision during judicial review. Additionally, Dass contends the TBPE lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to regulate construction material testing (CMT), which he argues is not "professional engineering." He also challenges the TBPE's authority to restrict competitive bidding for CMT and asserts that the 2005/2009 CME Policy Advisory Opinion, relied upon by the Board, is an invalid and unenforceable standard not promulgated under the Administrative Procedure Act. Finally, Dass argues that even if the testing was Construction Materials Engineering (CME), Naismith Engineering, not Dass, was the supervising engineer for the project.

Engineering RegulationProfessional ConductLicensing SanctionsAdministrative OverreachStatutory InterpretationPublic Works ProjectsRegulatory ComplianceJudicial OversightAgency Rules ValidityProfessional Responsibility
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Otis Engineering Corp.

Gary L. Smith brought a personal injury action against Stewart Well Service Company, Otis Engineering Corporation, and Houston Fishing Tools Company. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment for Otis Engineering, asserting Smith was its 'borrowed servant' due to his acceptance of workers' compensation benefits and a release. The appellate court disagreed, holding that the summary judgment proof did not establish, as a matter of law, that Otis Engineering had sufficient control over Smith's work to make him its borrowed servant. Furthermore, the court stated that the payment of workers' compensation benefits alone does not automatically grant employer status under the Workers' Compensation Act. Consequently, the trial court's summary judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentReversed and RemandedWorkers' CompensationBorrowed Servant DoctrineEmployer-Employee RelationshipNegligence ActionAppellate ReviewControl TestRelease Agreement
References
3
Case No. 2019-06-1297
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2022

Earheart, Jr., John v. Central Transport, Inc.

John Earheart, Jr., a delivery driver, filed a claim against his employer, Central Transport, Inc., and its carrier, Cherokee Insurance Co., for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a hip injury in 2016. The primary dispute at the compensation hearing was Mr. Earheart's entitlement to attorney's fees and costs due to Central Transport's alleged wrongful failure to timely pay temporary disability benefits. Central Transport argued it was not responsible for fees as it eventually agreed to pay benefits, but Mr. Earheart countered that the agreement only came after significant effort from his lawyer. The Court sided with Mr. Earheart, finding Central Transport erroneously relied on an unauthorized physician for an MMI determination and wrongfully terminated him, leading to the untimely payment of benefits. Consequently, the Court awarded Mr. Earheart $50,505.50 in attorney's fees and costs, in addition to medical treatment and agreed-upon permanent partial disability benefits.

Attorney's Fees AwardTemporary Disability Benefits DisputeMaximum Medical Improvement DeterminationEmployer's Physician OpinionAuthorized Treating PhysicianWrongful TerminationRetaliatory Discharge ClaimDelayed Benefit PaymentsJudicial Finding of Erroneous Employer ActionPermanent Partial Disability Benefits
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,546 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