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

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. NO. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2017

Noah S. Bunker Paul Carrell Everett Brew Houston, Jr. W. Andrew Buckholz Scott J. Leighty Jad L. Davis And Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

This case concerns an appeal from a declaratory summary judgment regarding a liquidated-damages provision. Appellee Tracy Strandhagen, a physician, sought to declare a $500,000 liquidated-damages clause in an operating agreement with her former medical practice group's advisory board (appellants) an unenforceable penalty. The trial court denied the appellants' plea to the jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for Strandhagen. On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, found that Strandhagen failed to conclusively prove the provision was an unreasonable forecast of just compensation. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, while affirming that the claim was ripe for review.

Contract LawLiquidated DamagesSummary Judgment AppealDeclaratory JudgmentContract BreachEmployment AgreementOperating AgreementUnenforceable PenaltyRipeness DoctrineAppellate Review
References
43
Case No. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

Dr. Tracy D. Strandhagen, an anesthesiologist, was a partner in Austin Anesthesiology Group, LLP, which was sold to American Anesthesiology of Texas, Inc. Physicians, including Strandhagen and the appellants, entered into an Advisory Board and Internal Operations Agreement. This agreement included a 'Termination Penalty Clause' stating that if a physician's employment with AAT terminated early for reasons other than without cause by AAT, they would pay $500,000 in liquidated damages. Strandhagen's employment terminated in July 2013, leading to a dispute over the enforceability of this clause. The trial court granted Strandhagen's motion for summary judgment, declaring the $500,000 liquidated damages clause an unenforceable penalty because it was not a reasonable forecast of just compensation.

Contract DisputeLiquidated DamagesUnenforceable PenaltyEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate LawTexas LawCommercial Contract
References
54
Case No. Misc. Docket No. 07-9197
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2007

Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. American Home Assurance Co.

The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether liability insurers engage in the unauthorized practice of law by using staff attorneys to defend insureds. The Court held that insurers may use staff attorneys if the insurer's and insured's interests are congruent, meaning they are aligned in defeating the claim with no conflict of interest. Staff attorneys must fully disclose their affiliation with the insurer to the insured. The Court rejected the argument that insurers' use of staff attorneys inherently creates irreconcilable conflicts or violates various professional conduct rules or statutes, emphasizing a lack of empirical evidence of harm. The judgment of the court of appeals was modified accordingly and, as modified, affirmed.

Unauthorized Practice of LawStaff AttorneysInsurance DefenseAttorney-Client RelationshipConflict of InterestCorporate Practice of LawTexas Supreme CourtLegal EthicsProfessional JudgmentInsurer Duty to Defend
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clause v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Darrell H. Clause, Jr. sustained back injuries in a construction site accident while being transported in a pickup truck owned by his employer, Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc., a subcontractor for general contractor Scrufari Construction Co., Inc., at a site owned by E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Company. A jury found violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence, awarding damages for medical expenses and lost wages but no pain and suffering to plaintiff, nor any damages to his wife's derivative claim. The Supreme Court initially set aside the verdict regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) liability and granted a new trial. On appeal, the higher court found that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence. The appellate court also determined that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering to plaintiff was unreasonable, granting a new trial solely on those damages, while upholding the denial of damages for the wife's derivative claim.

Construction Site AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. W2013-00673-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2014

Practical Ventures, LLC d/b/a AAA Cash Fast v. James Neely, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, and Danyelle A. McCullough

This case involves an appeal from an administrative decision regarding unemployment benefits. Practical Ventures, LLC, the employer, appealed the decision by the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, which found claimant Danyelle A. McCullough eligible for unemployment benefits based on "constructive discharge." The employer discovered financial irregularities in McCullough's store, suspended her, and requested her keys. McCullough claimed she was planning to quit anyway due to her daughter's illness. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's affirmance, holding that the doctrine of constructive discharge is inapplicable to unemployment compensation proceedings and that McCullough's actions amounted to a voluntary termination of employment without good cause, thus disqualifying her from benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsConstructive DischargeVoluntary TerminationFinancial MisconductEmployee SuspensionAdministrative DecisionJudicial ReviewAppellate CourtLabor LawWorkforce Development
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 1987

Universal Underwriters Insurance v. Patriot Ambulette, Inc.

The plaintiff, an unnamed insurance carrier, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which mandated it to defend and indemnify the defendant, Patriot Ambulette, Inc., in a personal injury lawsuit filed by Edward Camarero. The core issue revolved around the defendant's delayed notification of an accident to the plaintiff, attributed to an insurance broker's error. Despite a policy clause requiring notice "as soon as practicable," the court found the five-month delay not unreasonable under the circumstances, noting the plaintiff's failure to produce a key witness. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the judgment, obligating the plaintiff to fulfill its duties under the insurance policy.

Insurance ContractDeclaratory JudgmentNotice of AccidentDelayed NoticeDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyInsurance Broker ErrorReasonableness of NoticeAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury Action
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. James Mechanical, Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance

St. James Mechanical, Inc., an insured party, initiated an action against its insurance carrier, Royal Insurance Company, and an affiliated carrier, seeking a judgment declaring their obligation to defend and indemnify St. James in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. This underlying action stemmed from an accident involving a worker hired by St. James for renovations at the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers. Royal disclaimed coverage, citing St. James's two-year delay in providing notice of the accident, contending it failed to meet the 'as soon as practicable' clause in the commercial general liability policy. Initially, the Supreme Court granted the insurance carriers' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing St. James's complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that St. James successfully raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether its delay in notice was reasonably based on a good faith belief in nonliability, thereby precluding summary judgment.

Insurance coverageTimely noticeDisclaimer of coverageSummary judgmentPersonal injuryDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyGood faith belief in nonliabilityCondition precedentAppellate review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Coast Utilities Coalition v. Railroad Commission

The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision, ruling that the Railroad Commission of Texas had the authority to adopt a gas utility rate schedule with a Cost of Service Adjustment (COSA) clause. This COSA clause allows for automatic annual rate adjustments based on increases or decreases in the utility’s cost of service without requiring a new full rate case each year. The Court determined that the Gas Utility Regulatory Act (GURA) expressly grants the Commission authority to establish such "rates," including practices affecting compensation and charges. The Court also found that the COSA clause complies with GURA's mandates regarding procedural requirements and municipal jurisdiction, as the clause itself is established through a full rate case and municipalities retain review and challenge capabilities.

Gas Utility RegulationRate SchedulesCost of Service AdjustmentCOSA ClauseRegulatory AuthorityMunicipal JurisdictionGURAStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawRate Increase
References
76
Showing 1-10 of 2,335 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