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

Whitehead v. Holston Defense Corporation

Eoscoe E. Whitehead was awarded total and permanent disability under the Workmen’s Compensation Law due to pulmonary fibrosis, an occupational disease contracted during his employment at Holston Defense Corporation. The defendant appealed, challenging the compensability of the disease and alleging lack of proper notice. The Court affirmed the Chancellor's decree, finding substantial evidence of a causal connection between Whitehead's work conditions and his illness. The Court also determined that the employer's medical staff had actual knowledge of Whitehead's condition and concealed it from him. It broadly interpreted T.C.A. sec. 50-1101 to include Whitehead's ailment as a compensable occupational disease, overruling the assignments of error.

Occupational DiseasePulmonary FibrosisWorkers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityCausationEmployer KnowledgeConcealment of ConditionStatutory ConstructionNon-scheduled Occupational DiseaseIndustrial Exposure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Center for Constitutional Rights v. Department of Defense

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) initiated this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD), FBI, and CIA, seeking the release of images and videos of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani from Guantánamo Bay. While the DOD and FBI acknowledged possessing such records but withheld them, the CIA issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying their existence. The Court ultimately denied CCR's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision cited national security concerns, including potential harm to military personnel, extremist recruitment, compromised intelligence efforts, and adverse impacts on international relations, as valid reasons for withholding the records and for the CIA's Glomar response under FOIA Exemption 1.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)National SecurityClassified InformationGuantánamo BayDetaineeMohammed al-QahtaniSummary JudgmentFOIA ExemptionsGlomar ResponseIntelligence Collection
References
26
Case No. 04-CR-156
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Taveras

Defendant Humberto Pepin Taveras faces a homicide trial where the government seeks the death penalty for the killings of two associates during a drug trafficking dispute. Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein addresses the admissibility of a self-defense claim, emphasizing heightened protections for defendants in capital cases and allowing more leeway for evidence favoring the defendant. The defense intends to establish self-defense through witness statements suggesting the victims, José Rosario and Carlos Madrid, had threatened Pepin and his family. The prosecution disputes this, arguing Pepin deliberately sought out and murdered the victims, thereby precluding a self-defense claim as he initiated the confrontations. The court ultimately rules that Pepin will be permitted to argue self-defense, and related evidence will be allowed, with a self-defense instruction to the jury contingent on sufficient proof being presented.

Self-defenseCapital punishmentHomicide trialEvidentiary rulesDrug traffickingDeath penaltyJury instructionsCriminal lawDue processReasonable doubt
References
45
Case No. 2012 WL 3756270
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2012

American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

This case involves the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), a pro-Israeli advocacy group, challenging the Metropolitan Transit Authority's (MTA) refusal to display a political advertisement on buses. The ad, which called for support for Israel and opposition to Jihad, was rejected by the MTA for violating its 'no-demeaning standard,' which prohibits ads demeaning individuals or groups based on characteristics like religion or national origin. AFDI sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the standard violated their First Amendment rights. The court found that the MTA's standard was content-based because it selectively prohibited demeaning speech only for certain protected characteristics, while allowing it for others. Consequently, the court granted AFDI's motion for a preliminary injunction, deeming the MTA's standard unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPolitical AdvertisingPublic Forum DoctrineDesignated Public ForumContent-Based RestrictionStrict ScrutinyPreliminary InjunctionMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityAdvertising Standards
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1999

Rothe Development Corp. v. United States Department of Defense

Rothe Development Corporation, a San Antonio-based company, sued the United States Department of Defense after losing a contract due to an evaluation preference favoring "socially and economically disadvantaged persons" under the 1207 program (10 U.S.C. § 2323). Rothe, the low bidder, argued this preference violated its Fifth Amendment equal protection rights. The government contended the preference met strict scrutiny standards. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment, ultimately granting the government's motion and denying Rothe's. The decision affirmed that Congress has a compelling interest in remedying past discrimination in government contracting and found the 1207 program, with its rebuttable presumptions and limited duration, to be narrowly tailored, rejecting Rothe's arguments regarding burden of proof, neutral alternatives, and the impact on third parties.

Affirmative ActionEqual ProtectionStrict ScrutinyGovernment ContractsSmall Disadvantaged Businesses1207 ProgramFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentRacial PreferencesSummary Judgment
References
47
Case No. 86 B 11270 (BRL)
Regular Panel Decision

Iles v. LTV Aerospace & Defense Co. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

This case is an appeal to the District Court concerning two proofs of claim filed in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding against LTV Aerospace and Defense Company. The bankruptcy court had disallowed and expunged these claims, filed by the "lies plaintiffs" (nine women employees/applicants) and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), arguing that class proofs of claim are impermissible. The District Court reversed this decision, holding that class proofs of claim are permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. It also affirmed that the UAW was authorized to file claims on behalf of its members, both as a creditor in its own right and as an authorized agent. The court found that the legislative history and policy of the Bankruptcy Code support allowing class proofs of claim and that the UAW had properly identified claimants and followed filing requirements.

Bankruptcy LawClass ActionProofs of ClaimChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditor RightsDebtorGender DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1964Labor UnionAuthorized Agent
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jordan v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

The Chief Justice dissents from the Court’s decision not to reconsider a panel’s opinion en banc, arguing that the panel opinion is contrary to established Texas law concerning retaliatory discharge under article 8307c of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The dissent asserts that the "after-acquired evidence defense" is an unprecedented affirmative defense that lacks statutory or common law basis in Texas, and it conflicts with the principle that an employee can recover even if retaliation is not the sole reason for discharge. Furthermore, the defense is criticized for being based on the false premise that an employee cannot be injured by an illegal discharge if they would not have been hired initially due to a falsified application. The dissent also argues that the defense is inherently speculative and cannot be proven as a matter of law, and that it encourages employers to engage in unlawful behavior. Finally, it suggests that equitable goals can be met through existing legal mechanisms like reducing damages or counterclaims for fraud.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeAfter-Acquired EvidenceSummary JudgmentTexas LawEmployment LawAffirmative DefenseEquitable ReliefCausationDamages
References
27
Case No. 14-17-00207-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2018

Landry's, Inc. and Houston Aquarium, Inc. v. Animal Legal Defense Fund, Carney Anne Nasser, and Cheryl Conley

This appeal arises from the dismissal of a case under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Appellants Landry’s, Inc. and Houston Aquarium, Inc. sued Appellees Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), Carney Anne Nasser, and Cheryl Conley for defamation, business disparagement, tortious interference, abuse of process, trespass, and conspiracy, related to statements about the care of four white tigers. The court affirmed the dismissal of all claims, finding that the judicial-proceedings privilege applied to the alleged defamatory statements and that Landry’s failed to establish a prima facie case for its other claims or requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. While upholding the dismissal, the court modified the judgment to remove certain conditional appellate attorney's fees and suggested a remittitur for the sanctions awarded to ALDF and Conley, deeming the initial amounts excessive for deterrence.

Texas Citizens Participation ActDefamationBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceAbuse of ProcessTrespassCivil ConspiracyEndangered Species ActJudicial Proceedings PrivilegeAttorney Immunity
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

XL Specialty Insurance v. Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd.

This memorandum opinion addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case originating from an explosion that killed two workers, one each from Kiewit Offshore Services, LTD (general contractor) and R.B.T. Welders, Inc. (subcontractor). Relatives of the deceased workers filed a negligence lawsuit. XL Specialty Insurance Company, RBT's insurer, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Kiewit, denying a duty to defend or indemnify. Kiewit, in turn, sought indemnification from RBT and coverage from XL. The Court granted Kiewit's motion for summary judgment in part, holding RBT must indemnify Kiewit for a $4 million settlement payment, specific attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest, finding Kiewit faced potential liability and the settlement was reasonable. The Court denied Kiewit's claim for undocumented expenses and denied XL's motion for summary judgment asserting statutory employer and borrowed servant defenses under workers' compensation laws for Kiewit, concluding these defenses were not applicable.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkers' CompensationInsurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer LiabilityContractual IndemnityBorrowed Servant DoctrineStatutory EmployerNegligence
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterson v. Barry, Bette & Led Duke, Inc.

The case involves a worker's fall through a roof, leading to a motion for summary judgment on liability by the plaintiff based on Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment on their 'recalcitrant worker' defense and for conditional indemnification against the third-party defendant, Wm. C. McCombs Company. The court addressed whether the facts supported the recalcitrant worker defense, which requires proof of a deliberate refusal to use available safety equipment. The court found a conspicuous lack of evidence for deliberate refusal, stating that unintentional failure or negligent omission would not support the defense against absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court noted that workers were not expected to be tied on at all times and had to unhook for tasks. Therefore, the defendants failed to prove the crucial element of deliberate refusal, and their summary judgment motion on this defense was denied. The court granted partial summary judgment on liability for the plaintiff and granted defendants' motion for contractual indemnification from McCombs, determining McCombs was an agent by operation of law.

Labor Law § 240(1)Recalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityConstruction AccidentFall from HeightSafety EquipmentDeliberate RefusalNegligent OmissionContractual Indemnification
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 2,585 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