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

Dye v. McIntyre Floral Co.

This suit was brought by employees against McIntyre Floral Company, alleging a deficiency in wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The core issue revolves around whether the employees are exempt from the Act's provisions due to their employment in agriculture, specifically in handling "agricultural or horticultural commodities for market." The chancellor initially sustained a demurrer, agreeing that the complainants were exempt. The court examined the Act's definition of "agriculture," which includes the cultivation and harvesting of horticultural commodities and practices incidental to farming, such as preparation for market. The court concluded that the employees' work, involving the receipt, care, and preparation of nursery products for shipment, falls under the "preparation for market" clause of the agricultural exemption, affirming the initial judgment. This construction aligns with the understanding of agriculture's seasonal nature, which includes horticulture.

Fair Labor Standards ActAgricultural ExemptionHorticultural CommoditiesNursery BusinessWage DeficiencyInterstate CommercePreparation for MarketFarm Laborer ExemptionStatutory InterpretationDavidson County
References
3
Case No. 03-98-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1999

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Farm, Inc. And Dean Paul D/B/A Paul Farms/Accord Agriculture, Inc. v. Accord Agriculture, Inc./Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Farm, Inc. And Dean Paul D/B/A Paul Farms

Accord Agriculture, Inc. (Accord) initiated a lawsuit against the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), challenging the validity of rules established for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Accord contended that the TNRCC failed to meet the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) reasoned justification requirement and exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating these rules. The trial court invalidated the CAFO rules due to the lack of reasoned justification but dismissed Accord's claims regarding a 'takings' violation and the constitutionality of the Right to Farm Act. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of the CAFO rules and the dismissal of the 'takings' claim. However, it reversed the dismissal of Accord's challenge to the Right to Farm Act, remanding that specific issue for further proceedings.

Administrative Procedure ActReasoned JustificationConcentrated Animal Feeding OperationsEnvironmental RegulationWater QualityAir QualityDeclaratory JudgmentStandingTakings ClaimRight to Farm Act
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Handel

HSBC Bank USA objected to Joel M. Handel's exemptions of his interest in a profit-sharing plan and three life insurance policies in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy. HSBC argued that Handel's actions, including unauthorized withdrawals and false representations as a trustee, violated the plan's terms, ERISA, and IRC Section 401(a), thereby rendering his interest non-exempt. The court acknowledged Handel's violations but, citing Patterson v. Shumate, ruled that an anti-alienation provision enforceable under ERISA excludes the plan interest from the bankruptcy estate, irrespective of operational compliance or tax-qualified status. Additionally, the court found Handel adequately identified the life insurance policies. Consequently, HSBC's motion was denied, preserving Handel's exemptions.

BankruptcyERISAPension PlanExemptionAnti-alienationDebtor's EstateIRC 401(a)Life InsuranceDebtor's ConductFiduciary Duty
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. New York State Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm (Lewis Farm) sought to build housing for farm workers in Essex County, within the Adirondack Park. The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) asserted jurisdiction, issued a cease and desist order, and levied a $50,000 civil penalty, claiming the structures were 'single family dwellings' requiring a permit. Lewis Farm challenged this, contending the housing constituted 'agricultural use structures' exempt from APA jurisdiction under the Adirondack Park Agency Act and the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act. The Supreme Court annulled the APA's determination, agreeing with Lewis Farm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that farmworker housing directly and customarily associated with agricultural use falls under the 'agricultural use structure' exemption, thus not requiring an APA permit.

Land UseAdirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationCPLR Article 78Farmworker HousingZoning ExemptionEnvironmental Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agricultural Warehouse, Inc. v. Uvalle

Ruben Uvalle, an employee of Delta Engcon, Inc., sued Agricultural Warehouse, Inc. (AWI), the premises owner, and J & 0 Concrete for negligence after falling at a construction site in 1981. Uvalle was injured when a steel column gave way due to misaligned anchor bolts and unsafe erection methods. The jury found AWI ninety percent negligent and J & 0 ten percent negligent, awarding damages to Uvalle and Texas Employers Insurance Association. AWI appealed, asserting errors in the trial court's jury instructions regarding duty of care and the definition of 'inherently dangerous work', as well as the exclusion of evidence concerning Delta's negligence. The appellate court found that the trial court misstated the law, improperly excluded evidence, and incorrectly defined 'inherently dangerous work'. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorJury InstructionsDuty of CareExcluded EvidenceInherently Dangerous WorkWorkers' CompensationAppellate Procedure
References
23
Case No. 10-94-174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 1994

Agricultural Transportation Corporation v. Fortenberry Insurance Agency

Fortenberry Insurance Agency sued Agricultural Transportation, Inc. (ATI) for unpaid premiums on a specified-vehicle liability policy. The trial court found an oral contract existed where Fortenberry Insurance would obtain coverage and ATI would pay a reasonable premium, which ATI breached by failing to pay a $7,575.92 deficit, and awarded attorney's fees. ATI appealed, arguing legal and factual insufficiency of evidence for an oral contract or its breach. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of an agreement and breach based on the parties' conduct and custom, despite subjective disagreements on policy type.

Insurance Premium DisputeOral ContractBreach of ContractAttorney's Fees AwardSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate AffirmationContract InterpretationCustom and PracticeBusiness InsuranceLiability Policy
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Smith

Maurice K. Guinn, the Chapter 7 Trustee, objected to Norma Howard Smith's amended exemption claim of $10,000.00 from a National Service Life Insurance Policy. The Debtor sought exemption under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1970(g) and § 5301. The court ruled that § 1970(g) does not cover National Service Life Insurance, but found the proceeds exempt under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5301(a) from creditors' claims. Additionally, the court decided that the funds maintained their exempt status after being invested in a certificate of deposit. Consequently, the Trustee's objection was denied, upholding the Debtor's exemption claim.

BankruptcyExemption ClaimChapter 7National Service Life InsuranceVeterans' BenefitsStatutory ConstructionCreditor ClaimsCertificate of DepositLife Insurance ProceedsFederal Exemption Law
References
21
Case No. 03-17-00603-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2018

Texas Department of Agriculture v. Shelia Latting

Shelia Latting, a Black woman, sued the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) for race discrimination after her employment as Deputy Chief Financial Officer was terminated. Latting alleged that she was initially offered a promotion to Chief Financial Officer by Commissioner Sid Miller, but was unexpectedly terminated shortly after, with the stated reason being a 'Reduction in Force.' She claims that two less-qualified White women, April Bacon and Rebecca Sanchez, were subsequently hired to fill positions that essentially mirrored her former role, demonstrating a pretext for discrimination. The trial court denied TDA's plea to the jurisdiction, and Latting, as Appellee, argues that a fact issue exists regarding her qualifications and the discriminatory nature of her termination, precluding dismissal. The court is asked to affirm the trial court's denial of the plea.

Race DiscriminationEmployment TerminationDeputy Chief Financial OfficerTexas Department of AgriculturePlea to the JurisdictionPrima Facie CaseReduction in ForcePretext for DiscriminationQualified CandidateTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1995

In Re Minor

The court consolidated two Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, In re Minor and In re Mills, concerning objections by the Chapter 13 Trustee to the debtors' claims of exemption for lump-sum workers' compensation benefits. Debtors Kevin S. Minor, Angela D. Minor, and Martin Blaine Mills had received these settlements post-confirmation and sought to exempt them under Tennessee law. The primary issues resolved by Chief Judge Richard S. Stair, Jr. were whether these awards constituted property of the estate under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1306(a) and whether they should be included as "disposable income" for plan confirmation under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1325(b)(2). The court held that workers' compensation awards are indeed property of the estate and, despite state law exemptions, must be included in the calculation of disposable income to be applied to the Chapter 13 plan, to the extent not reasonably necessary for the debtors' support or business operations. Consequently, the Trustee's objection to amended exemptions was sustained in part, affirming that the benefits are property of the estate and disposable income, but overruled in part as debtors could still claim exemption under state law.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyWorkers' CompensationExemptionsDisposable IncomeProperty of EstatePost-Confirmation ModificationBankruptcy CodeTennessee LawLump Sum SettlementStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 896 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