Filters:
State Court
Texas State Court Cases
Norman v. Kahn Scheepvaart BV
The court of appeals affirmed a take-nothing judgment against the injured longshore worker, holding that most of her jury-charge complaints were not preserved for review and that the remaining alleged errors were either not erroneous or harmless. The court also found no reversible error in submitting a single broad-form negligence
- Citation: 14-24-00176-CV
- Court: 14th COA – Houston
- Date:
Motiva Enterprises LLC v. Whitmire
The court found Motiva Enterprises, LLC was entitled to summary judgment based on the exclusive-remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The court held that Motiva conclusively established it was the worker’s statutory employer because it provided workers’ compensation coverage through a valid agreement, and the worker had received
- Citation: 09-25-00053-CV
- Court: 9th COA – Beaumont
- Date:
Sharman v. American Zurich
Sharman failed to overturn the denial of her workers’ compensation claim, and the appellate court affirmed a directed verdict in favor of American Zurich. The court held there was no evidence of a compensable injury because Sharman presented no admissible evidence or testimony establishing that she was injured in the
- Citation: 05-24-01394-CV
- Court: 5th COA – Dallas
- Date:
Colorado Ranchers, Inc. v. Beltran
The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment for the employer, holding that there was no evidence supporting the jury’s retaliation finding. The court concluded that the employee did not engage in a protected activity under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act because
- Citation: 05-25-00243-CV
- Court: 5th COA – Dallas
- Date:
Admiral Insurance Company v. Lippert Components Inc.
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the insurer had a duty to defend the insured companies in the underlying personal injury suit. Applying the eight-corners rule, the court held that the plaintiff’s petition alleged facts that potentially fell within policy coverage and did not conclusively establish
- Citation: 10-23-00250-CV
- Court: 10th COA – Waco
- Date:
Lee. v. Grand Prairie Independent School District
The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because the appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed. As a result, the underlying decision affirming the Division of Workers’ Compensation remained undisturbed.
- Citation: 03-25-00938-CV
- Court: 3rd COA – Austin
- Date:
In re PVF Industrial Supply, Inc.
The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying PVF’s motion to designate UPS as a responsible third party. The court found the motion was timely and that PVF complied with disclosure requirements, so the statutory bar did not apply. It also noted
- Citation: https://texasworker.com/case/06-26-00021-cv/↗
- Court: 6th COA – Texarkana
- Date:
Antonio Munoz Aserradero, LLC v. Thomas
The court of appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of Thomas, holding that the employer defendants failed to conclusively prove that Thomas was an employee, so the exclusive-remedy defense under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act did not apply. The court determined that conflicting evidence about whether Thomas was merely “trying
- Citation: 12-25-00047-CV
- Court: 12th COA – Tyler
- Date:
Sanchez Guillen v. National American Insurance Company
Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. Macedonio Sanchez Guillen, Appellant v. National American Insurance Company, Cash Construction Company, and Richard Pena, Appellees NO. 03-25-00372-CV | Filed: March 11, 2026 FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-25-001140, THE HONORABLE CORY LIU, JUDGE PRESIDING Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and
- Citation: 03-25-00372-CV
- Court: 3rd COA – Austin
- Date:
Torres v. Ten Hagen Excavating, Inc.
The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of both the general contractor and the employer. It held that the general contractor owed no duty under the Texas Workers’ Compensation framework because it did not retain contractual or actual control over the subcontractor’s work. As to the employer, the
- Citation: 05-24-00827
- Court: 5th COA – Dallas
- Date: