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
Apr 05, 1990

Trump Village Section 3, Inc. v. Sinrod

The case involves a dissenting opinion regarding a landlord-tenant dispute over an anti-pet provision in a cooperative building. Judge Friedmann dissents, arguing that the defendants, the Sinrods, openly and notoriously harbored their dog, Coco, for seven months, thereby leading the plaintiff cooperative to waive its anti-pet policy under New York City's "Pet Law." Despite the plaintiff's claim of late awareness, the judge found the evidence of frequent public dog walking compelling. The dissent concludes that ruling against the defendants would impose an unreasonable burden on tenants and defeat the purpose of the Pet Law, especially since no nuisance was cited. Therefore, the judge advocates for reversing the prior order and dismissing the complaint.

Pet LawWaiverNo-Pet PolicyOpen and Notorious HarboringCooperative HousingApartment RegulationsNew York City Administrative CodeHousing DisputeTenant RightsLandlord-Tenant Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carrillo v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center

Carmen Carrillo, an employee of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, was terminated after filing a workers' compensation claim. She subsequently filed a wrongful termination lawsuit, alleging a violation of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Anti-Retaliation Provision. Texas Tech moved for summary judgment, asserting sovereign immunity as a state agency, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the appellate court finding no clear and unambiguous legislative intent to waive sovereign immunity for state agencies under the Anti-Retaliation Provision. The court distinguished this from political subdivisions where specific election-of-remedies provisions indicated a waiver of immunity.

Anti-RetaliationSovereign ImmunityState Agency LiabilityWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealTexas LawLegislative IntentGovernmental ImmunityTort Claims ActPublic Employee Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Getty Oil Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America

Getty Oil Company sued NL Industries, Inc. and its insurers (INA and Youell) for breach of contract to provide insurance coverage, following a wrongful death judgment against Getty. The dispute arose from an explosion of chemicals purchased from NL, resulting in a jury finding Getty 100% negligent. Getty sought reimbursement, arguing NL's insurance should cover its liability under a purchase order provision. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, citing the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Statute, express negligence rule, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court of appeals affirmed based on res judicata. The Supreme Court partially affirmed, holding Getty's claims against NL were barred by res judicata as they arose from the same transaction as previous litigation. However, the Court reversed the judgment regarding Getty's claims against NL's insurers (INA and Youell), finding those claims were not barred by res judicata due to 'no action' policy provisions and procedural rules preventing their joinder in the prior suit. The Court also held the Anti-Indemnity Statute and express negligence doctrine did not invalidate the additional insured provision for NL's insurers.

Oilfield Anti-Indemnity StatuteInsurance CoverageContractual IndemnityRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelExpress Negligence RuleTexas Civil LawContract InterpretationAdditional Insured ProvisionsLiability Insurance
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Health v. Ruiz

Rafael Ruiz, an x-ray technician employed by the Texas Department of Health (TDH), sustained a back injury at work in 1988. While on leave for his injury, he participated as a corner man in a televised boxing match. Shortly after, TDH terminated his employment, citing abuse of sick leave and unauthorized outside employment. Ruiz sued TDH for discrimination under the Anti-Retaliation Provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The jury found in favor of Ruiz, but the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the State of Texas had not waived its sovereign immunity under the Anti-Retaliation Provision, thus rendering judgment that Ruiz take nothing.

Workers' CompensationAnti-RetaliationSovereign ImmunityState AgencyEmployment LawRetaliatory DischargeTexas LawAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPublic Employee
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of General Elec. Co. (Elec., Etc., Workers)

A union sought to arbitrate a claim that a company violated an anti-discrimination provision of their collective bargaining agreement by not providing pension credits for time spent on union activities beyond the hours for which the company had agreed to pay. The collective bargaining agreement allowed for arbitration of disputes over its provisions but was silent on pensions. The court ruled that no bona fide dispute existed, as the anti-discrimination clause could not be used to force a change in a separate agreement about paid union time. The court reasoned that providing pension credits for unpaid union activity would discriminate in favor of union representatives, an obligation the company did not have. Therefore, there was no valid ground for arbitration, and the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPension CreditsAnti-Discrimination ClauseUnion ActivityEmployee BenefitsLabor DisputeAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationNew York State Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.

This civil action, brought by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice against Visa and MasterCard, alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act concerning governance and exclusionary rules. Following an earlier decision finding exclusionary rules anti-competitive, this Opinion addresses various proposed modifications to the court's Proposed Final Judgment. The court rejected anti-discrimination provisions and the exclusion of corporate and small business cards from the remedy. It clarified provisions regarding dual issuance of debit cards, the liability of Visa International, and modified the rescission period for agreements. Additionally, the court specified that MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy repeal applies only to issuers. The Final Judgment is set to expire in ten years.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCredit Card NetworksDebit Card ExclusivityFinal Judgment ModificationMarket CompetitionExclusionary PracticesFinancial ServicesCorporate CardsSmall Business Cards
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1978

M. H. v. J. H.

This case addresses a motion by the Brewery Workers Pension Fund to vacate a payroll deduction order issued by the Family Court. The order required the Pension Fund to deduct $35 per week from a retired respondent's pension for child support, benefiting the petitioner. The Pension Fund contended that the deduction violated its plan's anti-alienation provision, was not authorized by section 49-b of the Personal Property Law, and was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The court denied the Pension Fund's application, ruling that New York State law permits such deductions for child support despite pension plan restrictions and that ERISA's anti-assignment provisions do not prohibit court-ordered garnishments for support obligations, distinguishing them from voluntary assignments.

Child SupportPension GarnishmentERISA PreemptionPayroll Deduction OrderFamily LawSupport EnforcementAnti-Alienation ClausesState Law vs. Federal LawVoluntary vs. Involuntary TransferNew York Judiciary
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond Offshore Co. v. A&B BUILDERS, INC.

Diamond Offshore Company (Plaintiff) sued A&B Builders, Inc. (Defendant) for a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of a reciprocal indemnity provision and an additional-insured provision in their Master Service Contract. Lee McMillon, an A&B employee, sued Diamond after being injured on a Diamond rig. Diamond sought to enforce the contract's provisions against A&B. The Court found the Master Service Contract to be a maritime contract, governed by maritime law, thus invalidating A&B's arguments that state anti-indemnity laws or § 905(b) of the LHWCA applied to void the indemnity provision. The Court also determined that the additional-assured provision was an independent obligation. Consequently, the Court granted Diamond's motion for partial summary judgment and denied A&B's.

Maritime LawContractual IndemnitySummary JudgmentAdditional Insured ProvisionLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActDeclaratory Judgment ActionOffshore Oil and GasVessel RepairReciprocal Indemnity
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ranger Insurance Co. v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal by Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company (plaintiffs/appellants) challenging a summary judgment granted in favor of American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company (defendants/appellees). The core dispute stems from indemnity and insurance claims arising from oilfield litigation. Swift, a well operator, and Flournoy, a drilling contractor, had a contract with mutual indemnity provisions. Following a blowout that injured Flournoy employees, Swift and Ranger settled the personal injury claims and subsequently sought recovery from Flournoy and AISLIC. The trial court initially deemed the indemnity provisions void under the Texas Oilfield Anti Indemnity Act. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded, asserting that the indemnity provisions were enforceable under the 1995 Act up to the extent of equally provided coverage and dollar limits, and that these provisions were conspicuous.

Oilfield LitigationIndemnity ClaimsInsurance ClaimsDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTexas Oilfield Anti Indemnity ActMutual Indemnity ObligationContract InterpretationConspicuousnessSubrogation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mid-Century Insurance Co. of Texas v. Kidd

This case addresses whether an insured can recover the same loss under both uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) and personal injury protection (PIP) coverages of a standard automobile insurance policy in Texas. The Supreme Court consolidated two cases, Kidd and Gerlich, where lower courts refused to enforce a policy provision barring duplication of UM and PIP benefits. The Court held that a non-duplication-of-PIP-benefits provision is valid and enforceable, reversing the judgments of the courts of appeals. The decision clarifies that this offset provision prevents double recoveries, rather than reducing UM/UIM policy limits or causing insureds to recover less than actual damages, and is consistent with Texas statutes and common law.

Automobile InsuranceUninsured/Underinsured MotoristPersonal Injury ProtectionInsurance Policy InterpretationDouble RecoveryNon-Duplication ClauseCollateral Source RuleStatutory InterpretationInsurance LawPolicy Offsets
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 2,460 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