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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 1987

Kincade v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

This is a class action lawsuit filed against Firestone Tire and Rubber Company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging racial discrimination in various employment practices at its LaVergne, Tennessee plant. The plaintiffs, comprising black applicants, current, and former employees, and the Nashville NAACP, claimed discrimination in recruitment, hiring, promotions, disciplinary actions, and terminations. The Court found insufficient evidence to establish a systemwide pattern or practice of intentional discrimination or disparate impact for the class claims, thus entering judgment for the defendant on these matters. However, for individual claims, the Court ruled in favor of Bobby Lee Kincade for a racially hostile work environment, Mary Pope Fite for discriminatory failure to promote, and Bobby W. Ivy for discriminatory failure to hire, while denying all other individual claims.

Racial discriminationEmployment discriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act42 U.S.C. § 1981Disparate treatmentDisparate impactClass actionHiring discriminationPromotion discrimination
References
42
Case No. In re U.S. Air Duct Corporation
Regular Panel Decision

Mazur v. U. S. Air Duct Corp. (In Re U. S. Air Duct Corp.)

The case involves the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local No. 58 (the Association) seeking to recover fringe benefits and wage supplement contributions from U.S. Air Duct Corporation (the Debtor) and its president, Franklin E. Bean (the Non-Debtor). The Association initiated an action in New York Supreme Court, which was subsequently stayed when the Debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Non-Debtor removed the state-court proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court, prompting the Association to move for its remand. The Bankruptcy Court denied the Association's motion, asserting jurisdiction over the claim against the Non-Debtor based on its relation to the Title 11 case and the joint and several liability under New York Labor Law Section 198-c. The court also affirmed the permissibility of removal by "any party" under 28 U.S.C. 1478(a).

BankruptcyChapter 7RemovalRemandJurisdictionLabor LawFringe BenefitsWage SupplementsCorporate Officer LiabilityJoint and Several Liability
References
13
Case No. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goins v. Hitchcock I.S.D.

Plaintiff Rolisha Goins filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against Hitchcock Independent School District (HISD) and several individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on gender and race under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C § 1981, Title VII, and Title IX. Goins, a former coach, claimed HISD failed to comply with a previous settlement agreement regarding gender inequality in athletics, misrepresented her salary, and engaged in a campaign to ostracize her. She moved for the appointment of a Special Master to oversee discovery, citing lack of cooperation from HISD. Defendants filed an unopposed partial motion to dismiss all claims against the individual defendants. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for a Special Master, finding it unwarranted and that Defendants had cooperated. The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that official capacity claims were redundant, Title IX and Title VII do not permit individual liability, § 1981 claims lacked factual basis for racial discrimination, § 1983 claims failed to allege adverse employment action, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were preempted or lacked outrageous conduct.

Gender DiscriminationRace DiscriminationEmployment LawMotion to DismissSpecial MasterTitle VIITitle IXSection 1983Section 1981Official Capacity
References
53
Case No. 13-15-00469-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2015

John C. Dempsey A/K/A Jack Dempsey and 401 Gold Consultants v. U.S. Money Reserve, Inc. D/B/A United States Rare Coin & Bullion Reserve

U.S. Money Reserve, Inc. sued John C. Dempsey for an injunction and money judgment based on a non-compete agreement. The trial court denied Dempsey’s motion to stay arbitration and, after an arbitration award of $1,650,000.00 was entered, confirmed the award despite Dempsey's objections. This appeal argues that the arbitration provision did not cover the specific dispute regarding a breach of contract and liquidated damages, and that USMR waived its right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process for over three years.

Arbitration AgreementNon-Compete ClauseBreach of ContractWaiver of ArbitrationJudicial ProcessAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment MotionInjunctive ReliefLiquidated DamagesTexas Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

Royal Park Investments SA/NV sued U.S. Bank National Association regarding residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). U.S. Bank moved to dismiss the action or disqualify Royal Park as class representative due to Royal Park's failure to produce documents from its assignors. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, found Royal Park's non-compliance willful but denied U.S. Bank's motion for sanctions and disqualification. The court reasoned that U.S. Bank had not yet demonstrated sufficient prejudice to warrant such severe sanctions, indicating that dismissal would be 'unnecessarily draconian'. The motion was denied without prejudice, allowing U.S. Bank to renew its application if prejudice could be shown.

Discovery SanctionsWillfulnessPrejudiceClass ActionRMBS LitigationTrust Indenture ActBreach of ContractBreach of TrustAssignor DocumentsStanding
References
31
Case No. 01-03-00924-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2005

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. v. L.M.S.C., Inc., D/B/A the Dental Solution

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. appealed a judgment in favor of L.M.S.C., Inc., d/b/a The Dental Solution (TDS), stemming from a breach of contract dispute. TDS, a dental placement service, sued the Williams for an unpaid permanent placement fee after Diana Flanagan, whom TDS had previously placed temporarily as a dental hygienist, was hired by the Williams as a full-time dentist. The appellants challenged the jury's findings, arguing the contract did not cover dentists, lacked new consideration for modifications, and missed essential terms. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the placement agreement, as modified by subsequent fee schedules, applied to the placement of dentists and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the Williamses breached the contract by failing to pay the permanent placement fee. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees.

Breach of ContractPlacement AgreementDental IndustryPermanent Placement FeeContract ModificationConsiderationMeeting of the MindsLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
35
Case No. 14-18-01059-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Rose A. Munguia, as Next Friend of E.S.U., a Minor and J.M.U., a Minor v. Justrod, Inc.

In this appeal, Rose A. Munguia, as next friend of minor children E.S.U. and J.M.U., challenges the trial court’s grant of summary judgment favoring Justrod, Inc. in a wrongful death action. Jose Ucles, the deceased, was working for Justrod as a framer when he fell to his death. Ucles was covered by worker’s compensation insurance. Munguia filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful death and gross negligence. Justrod filed both a no-evidence motion for summary judgment and a traditional motion for summary judgment, which were granted by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the judgment because Munguia failed to challenge all the grounds on which the summary judgment could have been based.

Summary JudgmentWrongful DeathGross NegligenceWorker's Compensation ActExclusive RemedyAppellate ProcedureChallenge All GroundsNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentTraditional Summary JudgmentFramer Accident
References
13
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayden v. Texas-U.S. Chemical Co.

E.D. Hayden sued his former employer, Texas-U.S. Chemical Company, for permanent and total disability benefits under the company's plan. After an initial judgment for Hayden in 1981, the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the case in 1982 for further consideration, questioning the basis of the district court's findings. Upon reconsideration of the original record and supplemental briefs, the district court determined that the Plan is governed by ERISA, which supersedes state law. The court found that Texas-U.S. failed to comply with ERISA's notice and appeal requirements and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying Hayden's claim. The court concluded that Hayden became permanently and totally disabled while an eligible employee, not during a layoff, and is therefore entitled to benefits under the Plan, re-entering judgment for Hayden in the amount of $30,463.20 plus attorneys' fees and costs.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsDisability PlanPermanent Total DisabilityArbitrary and Capricious StandardFederal Common LawContract InterpretationCollective Bargaining AgreementPreemptionNotice Requirements
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 9,120 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