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
Jun 25, 2012

Ruesch v. Ruesch

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, in a divorce and ancillary relief action. The Supreme Court found the defendant in civil contempt for violating a stipulation by allowing her paramour to reside in the marital home. The court suspended maintenance payments and imposed a prospective fine. The plaintiff argued for retrospective application of these penalties and an award of an attorney's fee. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that civil contempt fines are remedial, not punitive for past acts without proven actual loss. The court also found the denial of attorney's fees to be without merit.

DivorceCivil ContemptMaintenance PaymentsStipulation ViolationProspective FineMarital HomeAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionRemedial FineAttorney's Fee
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vainchenker v. Vainchenker

The plaintiff husband appealed portions of a Supreme Court judgment concerning his divorce and ancillary relief. Key points of contention included the equitable distribution of his medical license, the maintenance awarded to his wife, and his contribution to their eldest child's college expenses. The appellate court affirmed that the husband's New York medical license constituted a marital asset, subject to equitable distribution due to his enhanced earning capacity from training during the marriage, and upheld the wife's share. However, the court found the maintenance award to the wife was an improvident exercise of discretion and deleted it, leading to a recalculation and increase in child support. Additionally, the judgment was modified to ensure child support payments would be credited towards college expenses when the eldest child resides away from home.

Equitable DistributionMarital AssetMedical LicenseMaintenanceChild SupportCollege ExpensesDivorceAppellate ReviewEnhanced Earning CapacityFamily Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 1990

Wilson v. Wilson

In an appeal concerning a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife challenged the Supreme Court, Suffolk County's judgment regarding maintenance, child support, and marital property division. The appellate court found the initial five-year maintenance award for a 17-year marriage to be an improvident exercise of discretion, particularly given the defendant's inability to reenter the job market immediately due to child custody and the need for further training. Consequently, the judgment was modified to extend the maintenance period from five to eight years. Additionally, the plaintiff husband was directed to maintain existing medical, dental, and life insurance policies for the benefit of the child and the defendant wife, and to prorate the child's future uninsured healthcare expenses according to parental income proportions. The judgment, as modified, was affirmed.

DivorceAncillary ReliefMaintenance AwardChild SupportMarital Property DivisionAppellate ReviewDomestic Relations LawSpousal SupportHealth InsuranceLife Insurance
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seminerio v. Seminerio

In an appeal concerning a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant contested awards for maintenance, pension benefits, and attorney's fees. The appellate court modified the judgment by deleting the plaintiff's $800 per month maintenance payments. The decision was affirmed in part and remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings. The court found that the trial court erred in precluding testimony regarding the defendant's anticipated retirement, which should be considered when determining maintenance amount under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a). The matter was remitted to admit evidence of the defendant's future earning capacity and the plaintiff's expenses to properly determine maintenance.

DivorceMaintenance PaymentsSpousal SupportAncillary ReliefAppealMarital ResidenceEarning CapacityRetirement BenefitsJudicial ErrorRemittitur
References
5
Case No. 13-09-00443-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2010

in Re: Adan Volpe Properties, Ltd. and Maricela Volpe as General Partner

Adan Volpe Properties, Ltd. and Maricela Volpe (relators) filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a trial court's order to transfer venue. The relators' original lawsuit in Hidalgo County alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, defamation, libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, racketeering, and sought injunctive relief. The trial court granted motions by Donato Volpe Jr., Eustorgio Perez, and Luis Antonio Figueroa (real parties in interest) to transfer venue to Webb County, based on mandatory venue provisions for injunctions. The Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals reviewed whether the injunctive relief sought by relators was primary or ancillary to their claims for damages. The appellate court concluded that the injunctive relief was ancillary, thus section 65.023 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which mandates venue for primarily injunctive suits, did not apply. The petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, ordering the trial court to withdraw its venue transfer order.

MandamusVenue TransferCivil ProcedureInjunctive ReliefAncillary ClaimsFraudBreach of Fiduciary DutyDefamationRacketeeringTexas Court of Appeals
References
33
Case No. 04-15739
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2006

Continental Casualty Co. v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Quigley Co.)

Plaintiffs Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company initiated an adversary proceeding against Pfizer, Inc., Quigley Company, Inc. (a debtor-in-possession and Pfizer's subsidiary), and numerous other insurance companies. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that certain policies excluded coverage for asbestos-related claims, or alternatively, to reform them and apportion liability. Pfizer and Quigley moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim regarding anticipatory repudiation. A group of defendant insurers (Certain Insurers) sought to stay the proceeding and lift the automatic stay for arbitration. The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It stayed Counts One, Two, and Three, and Guildhall's cross-claim, pending the arbitration of coverage disputes, granting the Certain Insurers relief from the automatic stay to commence arbitration. Count Four, concerning anticipatory repudiation, was dismissed without prejudice.

BankruptcyInsurance Coverage DisputeAsbestos LiabilityDeclaratory Judgment ActArbitration AgreementStay of LitigationMotions to DismissAnticipatory RepudiationWellington AgreementPolicy Exclusions
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 1994

In Re Whitefield

Terry Wayne Whitefield and Carol Wright Whitefield filed a joint Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. The Child Support Division of the Sumner County Office of the District Attorney General inadvertently violated the automatic stay by initiating contempt proceedings and a wage assignment against Terry Wayne Whitefield for child support. The debtors filed a contempt petition seeking declaratory relief and attorney's fees. The court granted declaratory relief, finding the Child Support Division violated the automatic stay, and ordered the State of Tennessee to pay $200.00 in attorney's fees, ruling that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity does not bar such an award when ancillary to prospective relief. However, the petition for sanctions against Tonja Whitefield was denied due to insufficient evidence of her direct action.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayContemptEleventh AmendmentSovereign ImmunityAttorney's FeesDeclaratory ReliefChapter 13Child Support EnforcementState Immunity
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Atmos Energy Corp. v. Abbott

The appellants, Atmos Energy Corporations and Enermart Energy Services Trust, appealed the dismissal of their request for declaratory relief against the Office of the Attorney General in Travis County. They sought a declaration that a state statute regulating natural gas prices for agricultural users did not apply to them, or was unconstitutional if it did. The trial court granted the OAG's plea to the jurisdiction, citing pending parallel litigation and the appellants' failure to demonstrate an actual or threatened injury. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that the appellants' claims were not ripe for adjudication. It determined that the issues lacked fitness for judicial review and that denying the requested relief did not impose sufficient hardship on the appellants, thereby affirming the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Declaratory JudgmentRipeness DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityConstitutional ChallengeStatutory InterpretationUtilities CodeAgricultural UsersNatural Gas PricingPre-enforcement Suit
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenwald v. Axelrod (In Re Greenwald)

The Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health sought relief from an automatic stay in a Chapter 11 liquidation case to complete administrative proceedings concerning the debtor's medicaid reimbursement entitlements. The debtor, Sidney Greenwald d/b/a Maple Leaf Nursing Home, opposed the application, arguing the state's interest was pecuniary, not regulatory, thus precluding the 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) exception. The court found that the Commissioner's interest was indeed pecuniary, aiming to recoup approximately $911,500 in medicaid overpayments, and thus the regulatory exception did not apply. However, considering that the debtor's nursing home was sold, no patients were at risk, and the case was a liquidation, the court granted the relief from the stay, allowing the administrative appeals to conclude, with any enforcement subject to the bankruptcy court's review of the developed administrative record.

Automatic StayBankruptcyChapter 11Medicaid ReimbursementGovernmental Regulatory PowerPecuniary InterestAdministrative ProceedingsLiquidation CaseAudit AppealsNew York State Department of Health
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abbo-Bradley v. City of Niagara Falls

Three families residing near the Love Canal Landfill initiated an action in New York State Supreme Court, Niagara County, seeking damages and equitable relief for personal injuries and property damage caused by alleged releases of toxic chemicals. The case was subsequently removed to federal court under original federal jurisdiction pursuant to CERCLA. Defendant Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. (GSH) filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief to establish a discovery protocol, requesting prior notice, contemporaneous access, and the opportunity for split samples during plaintiffs' environmental sampling activities. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, citing jurisdictional concerns, work product, and attorney-client privileges. The court, asserting its authority to maintain the status quo pending a remand decision, rejected the privilege claims and found that spoliation concerns warranted the injunction. Consequently, the court granted GSH's motion, enjoining plaintiffs from further environmental sampling without providing 96-hour written notice, contemporaneous access, and the opportunity for all parties to take split samples.

Environmental LitigationCERCLAPreliminary InjunctionDiscovery ProtocolSpoliation of EvidenceWork Product DoctrineAttorney-Client PrivilegeLove CanalToxic WasteHazardous Materials
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 1,432 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