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. VNO 178912 LAO 571596
Regular
Oct 04, 2007

MARCUS CAZARES vs. NORMAN BELL ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration, writ of mandate, and removal. The WCAB found that the order denying an expedited hearing was interlocutory and not subject to reconsideration, and that the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

WCABOpinion and OrdersDismissing PetitionPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Writ of MandatePetition for RemovalExpedited Hearing5402 PresumptionLabor Code Section 5402Interlocutory Procedural Order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re State

The State of Texas filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, contending that the district court issued a void order assessing attorneys’ fees after a previous appellate mandate. The district court had awarded Anderson Courier Service $368,857 in attorneys' fees as supplemental relief under sections 37.009 and 37.011 of the Texas Declaratory Judgment Act. The State argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to make such an award post-mandate. This Court denied the petition for mandamus, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the request for supplemental relief under section 37.011, even after the appeal was completed. The opinion clarified that issues regarding whether the award was "necessary or proper" would be addressed in a pending appeal, as they do not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction.

MandamusJurisdictionAttorneys' FeesDeclaratory Judgment ActSupplemental ReliefAppellate MandateVoid OrderCivil ProcedureTexas Law
References
18
Case No. 13-09-00443-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2010

in Re: Adan Volpe Properties, Ltd. and Maricela Volpe as General Partner

Adan Volpe Properties, Ltd. and Maricela Volpe (relators) filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a trial court's order to transfer venue. The relators' original lawsuit in Hidalgo County alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, defamation, libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, racketeering, and sought injunctive relief. The trial court granted motions by Donato Volpe Jr., Eustorgio Perez, and Luis Antonio Figueroa (real parties in interest) to transfer venue to Webb County, based on mandatory venue provisions for injunctions. The Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals reviewed whether the injunctive relief sought by relators was primary or ancillary to their claims for damages. The appellate court concluded that the injunctive relief was ancillary, thus section 65.023 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which mandates venue for primarily injunctive suits, did not apply. The petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, ordering the trial court to withdraw its venue transfer order.

MandamusVenue TransferCivil ProcedureInjunctive ReliefAncillary ClaimsFraudBreach of Fiduciary DutyDefamationRacketeeringTexas Court of Appeals
References
33
Case No. No.2012-04155
Regular Panel Decision

in Re Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas

Park Plaza Hospital sued Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas for additional reimbursement for medical services provided to an insured patient. Mid-Century filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that Park Plaza failed to exhaust its administrative remedies with the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC). The trial court denied this plea. The appellate court, presiding over Mid-Century's petition for writ of mandamus, determined that the DWC has exclusive original jurisdiction over "non-network" medical fee disputes, which includes the present case as the Beech Street network is uncertified. Consequently, Park Plaza was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before proceeding to state court. The appellate court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Mid-Century's plea, thus disrupting the legislatively mandated administrative resolution process.

Workers' CompensationMedical Fee DisputeExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesPlea to JurisdictionWrit of MandamusCertified NetworkNon-Network Health CareAppellate CourtInsurance Dispute
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laird v. King

E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. sought a reduction in a $7.15 million supersedeas bond following a $5 million judgment (after remittitur from $16.5 million) in favor of Lynda Laird. The underlying judgment stemmed from negligence and intentional sexual assaults committed by E-Z Mart's employees. E-Z Mart argued that posting the full bond would cause irreparable harm and that Lynda Laird would suffer no substantial harm if the bond were reduced. However, the court, referencing Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §§ 52.002 and 52.005, determined that these statutes control over Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47(b)(1) in personal injury cases. The court held that personal injury judgments are exempt from supersedeas bond reductions, mandating a full bond equal to the judgment plus interest and costs. Consequently, the court found that the trial judge erred in reducing the bond and conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, requiring a supersedeas bond of at least $7.15 million to protect the judgment creditor, Lynda Laird.

Supersedeas BondMandamusAppellate ProcedureCivil Practice and Remedies CodePersonal Injury JudgmentIrreparable HarmSubstantial HarmJudgment DebtorJudgment CreditorStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Case No. 05-15-01292-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2015

in Re: Giant Eagle, Inc.

This document is an Index to the Record for a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Relator Giant Eagle, Inc. in the Fifth Court of Appeals, Dallas, Texas. The mandamus seeks relief from the trial court's denial of Giant Eagle's motion to dismiss based on collateral estoppel or a forum selection clause. The underlying case involves Dickson Perry suing Giant Eagle and other defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition, stemming from alleged corporate misconduct and self-dealing after Perry's termination. Giant Eagle argues that a prior federal court decision (Judge Boyle's) established Texas as an improper forum for claims requiring interpretation of Stock Purchase Agreements (SP Agreements), and that the forum selection clause therein mandates litigation in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Perry contends his current claims are new, post-2012 events, distinct from prior patent infringement claims, and do not 'arise out of' the SP Agreements. The trial court denied Giant Eagle's motion to dismiss and its subsequent motion to stay proceedings, leading to this mandamus petition.

MandamusForum Selection ClauseCollateral EstoppelBreach of Fiduciary DutyUnfair CompetitionTexas LawCorporate GovernanceDerivative ActionShareholder DisputeContract Interpretation
References
19
Case No. WR No. 20,644
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Larson, Paul Allen

Paul Larson, acting pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Error/Bill of Review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Larson alleges errors appearing on the face of the record and extrinsic fraud committed by the State in connection with prior Cause Numbers 449008-C, 449008-D, 465007-C, and 465007-D. He specifically claims the State mislabeled a June 12, 2014, answer as 'Original' and intentionally delayed its delivery. Larson seeks a full review of the Habeas Record, an order for the Harris County District Clerk's Office to provide complete files, and for the Court to grant his Bill of Review and the relief originally sought in his Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Writ of Mandamus.

Writ of ErrorBill of ReviewHabeas CorpusMandamusFraudError on RecordExtrinsic FraudTexas Court of Criminal AppealsPro SeSupervised Release
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capozzi v. Whitman

This case involves an Article 78 application for a writ of prohibition against a Justice of the Municipal Court. The petitioner, acting as a landlord, sought to prevent the Municipal Court from vacating a final order and warrant of eviction previously issued in a summary proceeding. The tenant had moved to set aside the final order, citing fraud or mistake. The court ruled that it possesses inherent power to vacate its own judgments or final orders in the interest of justice. Furthermore, the petitioner was found to have an adequate remedy through appeal. Consequently, the cross-motion was granted, and the proceeding for a writ of prohibition was dismissed.

Article 78Writ of ProhibitionSummary ProceedingVacating Final OrderInherent Court PowerAppellate RemedyLandlord-Tenant DisputeFraudNewly Discovered EvidenceMunicipal Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Copeland

Michael Copeland sought a writ of mandamus to compel the district judge to vacate an order forcing arbitration with his employer, Stanley Transportation, Inc., following a work-related injury. Copeland contested the validity and public policy compliance of the arbitration agreement, specifically challenging the trial court's finding that Stanley's employee benefit plan offered benefits comparable to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Citing Lawrence v. CDB Servs., Inc., the court clarified that comparing benefit plan equivalence is not a relevant issue for compelling arbitration. Consequently, as the sole stated basis for the mandamus petition was deemed irrelevant, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus was denied.

Arbitration AgreementMandamusEmployment LawContract ValidityPublic PolicyFederal Arbitration ActTexas LawPreemptionEmployee Benefit PlanAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Industrial Accident Board of the State of Texas v. Spears

The Industrial Accident Board (IAB) sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Carolyn H. Spears to disqualify Bruce Miller and the law firm Tinsman & Houser from representing Jesse Casias in a tort action. The IAB argued a conflict of interest because Margaret Maisel, a member of the firm, previously served as IAB chairman and legal advisor. The court found that Maisel's prior role and knowledge of the notice issue in Casias's case created a substantial relationship and a conclusive presumption of shared confidences within her firm. Additionally, Maisel was deemed a potential material witness and a former government attorney without consent to represent the IAB's adversary. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering the disqualification, rejecting arguments of waiver and undue delay, and thus conditionally granted the writ of mandamus.

Conflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationWrit of MandamusEthical StandardsFormer ClientMaterial WitnessGovernment AttorneyTexas Tort Claims ActActual NoticeProfessional Responsibility
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,901 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