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. B14-85-095-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 1985

Davis v. Sinclair Refining Co.

Charles Edward Davis, an Arco employee, sustained severe burns due to a defective pipe installed by Sinclair Refining Company, which later merged with Arco. Davis received workers' compensation benefits but also filed a third-party action against Sinclair and Arco, arguing Arco assumed Sinclair's liabilities through the merger. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, asserting Davis had elected his remedy under workers' compensation laws. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.), affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that corporate merger statutes were not intended to bypass the exclusive remedy of the Workers' Compensation Act and rejected the application of the "dual capacity" doctrine in this context. A dissenting opinion advocated for the adoption of a limited "dual capacity" doctrine when an employer contractually assumes the liabilities of a third-party tortfeasor through merger.

Summary Judgment AppealCorporate Merger LiabilityThird-Party ActionExclusive Remedy PrincipleDual Capacity Doctrine RejectionTexas Workers' Compensation ActSuccessor Corporation LiabilityAssumption of LiabilitiesEmployer ImmunityIndustrial Accident Compensation
References
14
Case No. 01-95-01553-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 1996

Johnson v. Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Services

Ceola D. Johnson sued her employer, Bethesda Lutheran Homes and Services, for violating anti-retaliation law, alleging she was fired for filing a worker's compensation claim. The employer discovered Johnson had a prior felony conviction (securing execution of a check by deception) which she had not disclosed on her employment application. The employer was granted summary judgment based on the after-acquired evidence doctrine, contending they would not have hired her had they known of the conviction. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the after-acquired evidence doctrine limits damages in anti-retaliation claims (barring reinstatement and actual damages after discovery of the falsified application) but does not serve as an absolute bar to the lawsuit. The court identified outstanding questions of fact regarding whether the appellant knew her probation was a final criminal conviction, and the employer's hiring and firing intentions.

Employment LawAnti-Retaliation LawWorker's CompensationAfter-Acquired EvidenceSummary Judgment AppealFalsified ApplicationFelony ConvictionDamages LimitationCourt of Appeals DecisionUndisclosed Information
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Cablevision Systems Corp. Shareholders Litigation

This case addresses a motion for attorneys' fees and expenses in a class action brought by minority shareholders of Cablevision against the Dolan family and Cablevision's directors. The shareholders alleged breaches of fiduciary duty concerning two merger proposals and a special dividend. Plaintiffs' counsel actively participated in negotiations, leading to an increased share price offer and other concessions in the merger agreement, although the merger was ultimately rejected by the shareholders. The court granted the motion to the extent of ordering a hearing to determine the reasonable value of legal services, applying the "substantial benefit" rule and finding defendants judicially estopped from denying the benefit of counsel's efforts. The opinion discusses the criteria for class certification, the "common fund" doctrine, and the appropriate method for calculating attorneys' fees.

Class ActionShareholder LitigationAttorneys' FeesMerger and AcquisitionFiduciary DutyCorporate GovernanceSpecial CommitteeStock ValuationSettlement NegotiationsJudicial Estoppel
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Needle Trades Workers' Industrial Union

The indictment charges the defendants, including the Needle Trades Workers’ Industrial Union, with violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by conspiring to restrain interstate trade in raw skins. The conspiracy involved preventing non-union dressers from processing skins and dealers from shipping to them, employing violent tactics such as threats, assaults, destruction of property, and the use of explosives. The court addressed whether these actions constituted a restraint of interstate commerce, differentiating between local strikes with indirect effects and direct interference with interstate trade. It concluded that the alleged prevention of New York dealers from shipping skins to New Jersey dressers constituted a direct, substantial, and intentional interference with interstate commerce. The court also affirmed that shipping goods for processing across state lines is considered interstate commerce and clarified that the National Industrial Recovery Act did not repeal the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or legalize such a conspiracy. Consequently, the demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the indictment was overruled.

Sherman Anti-Trust ActInterstate CommerceLabor UnionConspiracyDemurrerIndictmentTrade RestraintViolenceSecondary BoycottLabor Disputes
References
9
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

In re the Arbitration between Genuth & S. B. Thomas, Inc.

The case involves a dispute between parties to a collective bargaining agreement regarding the application of the 'anti-pyramiding' clause concerning overtime and invasion of rest period pay. The core issue was whether the rest period was curtailed by overtime worked before it began or by an early return to work. The employer argued for the former, which would activate the anti-pyramiding clause, while the union advocated for the latter, negating the clause's impact and increasing worker pay. The arbitrator sided with the union's interpretation. The court subsequently denied the employer's motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted the union's cross-motion to confirm it, affirming that the arbitrator's interpretation was permissible and within his competence.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementanti-pyramiding clauseovertime payrest period paylabor disputearbitration award confirmationcontract interpretationarbitrator's competencejudicial review of arbitration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suarez v. Sherman Gin Co.

Lucio Suarez sued Sherman Gin Co. and others for personal injuries sustained in a cotton ginning machine accident that occurred after Sherman Gin Co. was dissolved. Suarez sought to recover damages under the trust fund theory from former directors, officers, and shareholders, and through the de facto merger doctrine against Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trust fund theory does not apply to post-dissolution claims, and no de facto merger occurred. Texas Employers' Insurance Association's claim for workers' compensation and medical benefits paid to Suarez was also denied.

Corporate DissolutionSuccessor LiabilityTrust Fund TheoryDe Facto MergerPost-Dissolution ClaimsProduct LiabilitySummary JudgmentTexas Business Corporation ActAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation
References
5
Case No. M2000-01794-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2002

Terilyn Sloan v. Tri-County Electric Membership Corp.

Plaintiff Terilyn Sloan resigned from Tri-County Electric after marrying a co-worker, citing the company's anti-nepotism policy. She then filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit, alleging that her dismissal violated public policy favoring marriage and her fundamental right to marry. The trial court dismissed her claim for failure to state a cause of action. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Sloan failed to demonstrate that a policy prohibiting concurrent employment of spouses violates a clear mandate of public policy. The court emphasized the narrow application of exceptions to the employment at-will doctrine and found no constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision that an anti-nepotism policy prohibiting spouses working together contravenes.

Anti-nepotism policyWrongful dischargePublic policy violationEmployment at-will doctrineMarital status discriminationRight to marryAppellate reviewAffirmanceTennessee lawStatutory interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iron Workers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Health Fund v. Dinnigan

The case involves a dispute between the Iron Workers Locals 40, 361, & 417 Health Fund and Robert Dinnigan, Amanda C. Dinnigan Supplemental Needs Irrevocable Trust, and their attorney regarding reimbursement of medical expenses. The Health Fund sought nearly $1.7 million paid for Amanda Dinnigan's severe injuries from a third-party tortfeasor settlement. Defendants argued against reimbursement, citing state anti-subrogation laws and the "made-whole" doctrine. The court ruled that the Health Fund was self-insured, thus preempting state law, and that the 2008 SPD, which rejected the made-whole doctrine, applied to most expenses. Ultimately, the court ordered judgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,292,278, having reduced the claim by 25% to account for the Defendants' attorneys' fees and expenses in securing the original settlement.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsHealth Fund ReimbursementSubrogationEquitable ReliefSelf-Insured PlanMade-Whole DoctrinePersonal Injury SettlementSupplemental Needs TrustAttorneys' Fees
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shelby v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Dennis K. Shelby sued Delta Air Lines for wrongful termination, alleging breach of employment contract, implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and deceit, and negligent misrepresentation, after being fired following an arrest for cocaine activities. Shelby claimed Delta's Anti-Drug Amnesty Program, which offered rehabilitation without disciplinary action for voluntary disclosures, should have applied to him. The Court granted Delta's motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding that under Tennessee's at-will employment doctrine, the Anti-Drug Memo did not create a definite term of employment and thus did not limit Delta's right to terminate. The Court also determined that Tennessee law does not recognize an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment, and that Shelby failed to show intent for fraud or applicability of negligent misrepresentation in an employment context.

Employment LawAt-Will EmploymentWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDrug Free Workplace ActAmnesty ProgramNegligent MisrepresentationFraud and DeceitImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 1,245 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