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 19, 2005

G.K. Alan Assoc., Inc. v. Lazzari

This case involves an action by G.K. Alan Assoc., Inc. (Alan) against Derval Lazzari (Lazzari) to enforce a consulting agreement. Lazzari asserts Alan was a "faithless agent" due to alleged insurance fraud against corporations in which Lazzari purchased stock, arguing this forfeits Alan's right to compensation under the consulting agreement. Alan counter-argues that the consulting agreement was part of the stock purchase price, making misconduct irrelevant, and that Lazzari was aware of the alleged fraud. The court examines the "faithless agent" rule, determining that forfeiture applies only to compensation for services rendered to the disloyal principal and is subject to apportionment if performance on other duties is untainted. The court found triable issues of fact, precluding summary judgment for Lazzari on his "faithless agent" defense. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order granting Lazzari's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed, and the matter was remanded, while an earlier order granting Lazzari leave to amend his answer was affirmed.

Faithless Agent RuleAgency LawConsulting AgreementInsurance FraudSummary Judgment MotionBreach of LoyaltyContract EnforcementCorporate LawAppellate ReviewForfeiture of Compensation
References
45
Case No. 03-00-00559-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2002

Rainbow Group, Ltd. and Alan Sager/Josephine Johnson Joanne Barker Elizabeth Gonzalez Ramiro Estrada Cheryl Hiltner Emily Hebert Ava Lott Jennifer Washington Amy Spilecke Seantel Cockle Tammy Peterson Lisa Small And Julie Vargas v. Josephine Johnson Jennifer Washington And Seantel Cockle/Rainbow Group, Ltd. and Alan Sager

The Texas Court of Appeals heard an appeal by Supercuts (Rainbow Group, Ltd. and Alan Sager) against a district court judgment favoring hairstylists on a quantum meruit claim for unpaid wages. Supercuts challenged the quantum meruit finding, damages, statute of limitations, and attorney's fees. The hairstylists cross-appealed, seeking additional post-judgment interest and arguing breach of contract. The appellate court affirmed the quantum meruit judgment and damages, reformed the judgment to include post-judgment interest from May 22, 2000, but reversed and remanded the attorney's fees award for reconsideration due to the trial court's failure to segregate fees for interrelated claims. The hairstylists' breach of contract claim was not sustained.

Quantum MeruitUnpaid WagesFair Labor Standards ActStatute of LimitationsDamages CalculationAttorney's Fees SegregationPost-Judgment InterestBreach of ContractClass Action CertificationEquitable Recovery
References
40
Case No. 533486
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Alan Richburg

Claimant Alan Richburg, an employee at a homeless shelter, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in June 2020 after contracting COVID-19. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially granted his request to compel the employer to produce COVID-19 related workplace documents, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding it improperly shifted the burden of proof. Claimant appealed the Board's reversal. However, the claimant's underlying COVID-19 claim was subsequently established by an unappealed WCLJ decision in August 2021, rendering the appeal regarding the document production moot. The court found no exception to the mootness doctrine applicable.

COVID-19 ClaimWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMootness DoctrineBurden of ProofDocument ProductionAppellate DivisionEmployer ObligationsClaim EstablishmentProcedural IssuesAppeal Dismissal
References
5
Case No. E2013-02415-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2014

Barbara Lynn Horine v. James Alan Horine

This divorce appeal involved Barbara Lynn Horine (Wife) and James Alan Horine (Husband). The Wife challenged the trial court's decisions regarding child support calculations, alimony awards, the requirement to reimburse Husband for a portion of mortgage payments on the marital home, and the court's refusal to mandate an income assignment for child support. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's judgment concerning child support and alimony, remanding the issues for appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law, especially concerning income imputation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order for the Wife to reimburse the Husband for mortgage payments. However, it reversed the trial court's decision not to order an income assignment to secure the child support obligation, thereby mandating an income assignment.

DivorceChild SupportAlimonyIncome ImputationMarital PropertyMortgage ReimbursementIncome AssignmentAppellate ReviewFindings of FactConclusions of Law
References
50
Case No. 2015-02-0061
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2016

Cotton, Alan v. HUMACare, Inc.

This Workers' Compensation case was filed by Mrs. Cotton, the surviving spouse of Alan Cotton, seeking death benefits after Mr. Cotton's fatal fall while working. The primary legal question addressed was whether HUMACare, Inc., a professional employer organization (PEO), qualified as an employer obligated to provide these benefits. The Court determined that HUMACare was indeed a co-employer of Mr. Cotton with Central USA. However, the Court also found that HUMACare bore no wage liability, as it only processed payroll from Central USA, thus absolving it of liability under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-211(a). Consequently, Mrs. Cotton's claim for widow benefits against HUMACare was denied and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Death Benefits ClaimProfessional Employer Organization (PEO)Co-Employment LiabilityWage Liability ApportionmentInsurance Carrier ResponsibilityEmployer DefinitionBurden of ProofCompensation HearingClaim DenialDismissal With Prejudice
References
5
Case No. 01-23-00158-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2025

Mark Alan Swanson v. Robert Danny Clack, II

This appeal stems from a dispute over a nonjudicial foreclosure and a conversion counterclaim. Mark Alan Swanson foreclosed on a property he sold to Robert Danny Clack, II, who then counterclaimed for conversion of personal property unlawfully removed from the house. The trial court initially deemed the foreclosure void and the jury found Swanson converted Clack's property with malice, awarding compensatory and exemplary damages, plus attorney's fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the conversion finding and damages (modifying the compensatory amount to $57,370), reversed the trial attorney's fees due to lack of segregation, and found the exemplary damages excessive, suggesting a remittitur to $114,740. Appellate attorney's fees were denied.

ForeclosureConversion TortReal PropertyDeed of TrustMemorandum OpinionExemplary DamagesCompensatory DamagesAttorney's FeesSufficiency of EvidenceJury Verdict
References
87
Case No. M2018-00132-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2018

Darrin M. Dixon v. Alan Wayne Chrisco

Purchasers Darrin and Teresa Dixon sued sellers Alan and Teddi Chrisco alleging intentional misrepresentation, a violation of the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosure Act (TRPDA), and fraudulent concealment concerning a railroad right-of-way and a planned second track on the property. The trial court dismissed misrepresentation and TRPDA claims but granted judgment to the Dixons for fraudulent concealment of the second track, awarding $15,000. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the fraudulent concealment claim related to the right-of-way's extent, citing the purchasers' failure to exercise ordinary diligence. However, the court reversed the $15,000 damages award for the fraudulent concealment of the railroad expansion, finding insufficient proof of the property's actual diminished value at the time of the transaction.

Real PropertyFraudulent ConcealmentMisrepresentationTennessee Residential Property Disclosure ActRight-of-WayRailroad ExpansionCaveat EmptorProperty ValueDamagesAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01077
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Matter of Simon

This disciplinary proceeding concerns attorney Alan Michael Simon, who was previously removed from his judicial position by the New York Court of Appeals for extensive judicial misconduct. The misconduct included bullying, ethnic smearing, poor temperament, engaging in a physical altercation, repeatedly threatening officials with contempt without cause, and improperly interfering in a political election. The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District brought three charges of professional misconduct against Simon, alleging conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer, and conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation. The court found the charges sustained under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, given the prior findings by the Court of Appeals. Despite Simon's arguments for mitigation, including his good faith and election as mayor, the court deemed his actions "truly egregious" and noted his continued lack of insight. Consequently, Alan Michael Simon was disbarred, effective immediately.

Attorney DisciplineJudicial MisconductDisbarmentProfessional MisconductCollateral EstoppelGrievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionRules of Professional ConductEthical ViolationsAttorney and Counselor-at-Law
References
4
Case No. 03-93-00431-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 1999

Rainbow Group, Ltd. and Alan Sager v. Josephine Johnson, Jennifer Casey, Seantel Wilmes and Ava Lott

This interlocutory appeal was brought by Rainbow Group, Ltd. and Alan Sager against a class certification order. The class, comprising former and current hairstylists, alleged that Rainbow Group breached oral employment contracts by preventing them from clocking in and refusing payment for mandatory meetings. Rainbow Group challenged the trial court's findings on numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance, and superiority. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the trial court's class certification, finding no abuse of discretion in its application of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and 42(b)(4) requirements.

Class ActionEmployment ContractsWage DisputeInterlocutory AppealAbuse of DiscretionClass Certification RequirementsNumerosityCommonalityTypicalityAdequacy of Representation
References
18
Case No. 03-01-00156-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2002

Lakeshore Utility Company, Inc., Sentry Title Company, Inc., Alan D. Whatley, and Thelma J. Whatley v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

This case concerns Lakeshore Utility Company, along with its parent Sentry Title Company and officers Alan and Thelma Whatley, appealing a district court judgment. The judgment imposed civil penalties for knowing violations of the Texas Water Code and mandated refunds for unauthorized "tap fees" not approved in Lakeshore's tariff. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court's finding that Lakeshore knowingly violated the water code by charging unapproved rates. However, it reversed the portion of the judgment requiring refunds beyond those previously ordered by the Commission in 1983 and 1989. The court concluded that the Commission lacked the statutory authority to seek such retroactive refunds directly in a court action on behalf of customers, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Utility RegulationCivil PenaltiesTap FeesRate ViolationsWater CodeStatutory AuthorityRefundsAdministrative OrdersJudicial ReviewAppellate Court
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 116 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