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

Liberty USA Corp. v. Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC

Liberty USA Corporation sued Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC and Terry S. Jacobs for $183,333.00 due on a Promissory Note. Defendants, after removing the case to federal court in the Southern District of New York, moved to dismiss or transfer venue. The central issue was conflicting forum selection clauses in the Promissory Note (New York) and an Asset Purchase Agreement (Ohio), both part of the same transaction. Applying contract interpretation principles from both New York and Ohio law, the court determined the Asset Purchase Agreement's Ohio forum selection clause superseded the Promissory Note's clause. Lacking statutory authority to transfer to a state court, the federal court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Forum Selection ClausePromissory NoteAsset Purchase AgreementSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionTransfer of VenueDiversity JurisdictionContract InterpretationOhio LawNew York Law
References
26
Case No. 03-14-00735-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Entergy Texas, Inc.// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and Texas Industrial Energy Consumers// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Entergy Texas, Inc.

The Commission’s Order should be affirmed. The Commission reasonably interpreted its prior rate-case order, the Black-box Order, to authorize Entergy to book and amortize a regulatory asset for unrecovered Hurricane Rita reconstruction costs. The Black-box Order was ambiguous concerning the Rita Asset. That order was based on a “black box” settlement—one where only the amount of rates to be collected was set forth, not all of the individual components of a rate case. Because the Black-box Order did not explicitly state whether booking and amortizing the regulatory asset had been authorized, it was ambiguous. Courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of its prior, ambiguous order, and the evidence in the record supports the Commission’s decision. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that $13 million should be added to Entergy’s storm reserve based on the expenses Entergy incurred to repair equipment after a severe ice storm in 1997. A prior Commission decision that faulted Entergy for poor service quality did not amount to a finding that Entergy could not include the repair costs in the insurance reserve amount. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy failed to meet its burden to prove that predicted purchased-power capacity costs were known-and-measurable changes to the test-year data. The record supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy did not meet its burden of proving that requested changes were known and measurable. For example, Entergy based its arguments about purchasing capacity on the assumption that it would always purchase the maximum amount under new contracts. Entergy claimed that it would have more customers in the future. Not only is that speculative, but the utility failed to account for how additional customers would otherwise affect its recovery through rates. And Entergy’s arguments about transmission charges are controlled by numerous unknown variables used in a complex formula. The Commission’s test-year rule is created to avoid just such unknowns. Moreover, most of Entergy’s request for post-test-year changes to transmission costs were based on an agreement that was still waiting for approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That is patently not a “known” change. Because substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decisions, the Order should be affirmed.

Utility RegulationRate CasePublic Utility CommissionAppellate BriefHurricane Rita CostsRegulatory AssetStorm Damage ReservePurchased Power CapacityTransmission EqualizationAdministrative Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coffey v. Singer Asset Finance Co., LLC

Appellants Rebecca Coffey, Angela Douglas, Donna Kisor, and Elizabeth Wallace appealed summary judgments dismissing their claims against Singer Asset Finance Company, Settlement Capital Corporation, and Merrick Bank Corporation. Appellants had previously settled personal injury lawsuits, receiving structured payments, and later took loans from appellees, using their future settlement payments as collateral. They sought to void these security interests, arguing they were prohibited by the insurance code, structured settlement documents, and public policy, contending the pledges constituted unlawful assignments or commutations. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the loan transactions created security interests, not assignments or commutations, and were thus permitted under the insurance code. Furthermore, the court found that the appellants had either waived or were estopped from asserting anti-assignment provisions in their original settlement agreements, and that these transactions did not violate public policy.

Structured SettlementsSecurity InterestsAnti-Assignment ClausesWaiverEstoppelPublic PolicyAnnuity ContractsInsurance CodeTexas LawLoan Agreements
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2006

East End Property Co. 1 v. Kessel

The case involves a hybrid proceeding (CPLR article 78) and a taxpayer action (State Finance Law § 123-b) challenging two determinations by the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) dated December 15, 2005. These determinations adopted a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) findings statement and authorized LIPA to enter into a power purchase agreement with Caithness Long Island, LLC, for a 350-megawatt power plant in Brookhaven. The petitioners-plaintiffs appealed from an order and judgment which denied their amended petition, dismissed the proceeding, and dismissed the sixth and seventh causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while some civic associations had standing for certain claims, none had standing for the sixth cause of action (violations of Public Authorities Law § 1020-f) and the individual appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient injury. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the CPLR article 78 proceeding, concluding that LIPA satisfied its SEQRA obligations, including taking a "hard look" at environmental impacts and adequately analyzing alternatives. The court further ruled that LIPA's segmentation of the Iroquois Pipeline Extension environmental review was not improper due to federal preemption by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and that no supplemental EIS was required. Finally, the court found the taxpayer action allegations insufficient to establish an illegal use of state funds under State Finance Law § 123-b.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAStandingTaxpayer ActionHybrid ProceedingPower Purchase AgreementLong Island Power AuthorityFederal PreemptionSegmentationAdministrative Law
References
55
Case No. 01-19-00642-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2021

James J. McKinley and Kin-Tek Laboratories, Inc. v. Kin-Tek Analytical, Inc.

James J. McKinley and Kin-Tek Laboratories, Inc. (appellants) appealed a final judgment in favor of Kin-Tek Analytical, Inc. (appellee), following a jury verdict on damages and attorney's fees. The dispute arose from an Asset Purchase Agreement where Analytical acquired Laboratories' assets, with McKinley holding 40% of Analytical's shares. Appellants initially sued Analytical and Botts for various claims, later nonsuiting them, leading to Analytical pursuing counterclaims for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and fraudulent inducement. The jury found that McKinley and Laboratories failed to comply with the Agreement, awarding Analytical damages for various 'Excluded Liabilities' and product-related issues. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's damages awards and rejecting appellants' arguments regarding fraudulent inducement and attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractAsset Purchase AgreementJury VerdictDamages AwardAttorney FeesSufficiency of EvidenceExcluded LiabilitiesProduct Documentation IssuesProduct Design DefectsFailure to Disclose
References
21
Case No. 01-08-00770-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2010

MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., and MEMC Pasadena, Inc. v. Albemarle Corporation, Lexington Insurance Company, and Travelers Property Casualty Group

This appeal concerns whether a party to an indemnification agreement can obtain indemnification for a dispute regarding the scope and meaning of the indemnification agreement, specifically, whether the agreement provides for indemnification of another matter. Appellants MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. and MEMC Pasadena, Inc. appealed the trial court’s rendition of summary judgment in favor of appellees Albemarle Corporation, Lexington Insurance Company, and Travelers Property Casualty Group. MEMC sought attorney's fees and expenses from Albemarle for Albemarle’s prosecution of an Excluded Obligation, arguing that the trial court erred by denying MEMC’s motion for summary judgment and granting Albemarle’s motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Asset Purchase Agreement did not provide for indemnification of “good faith” claims between MEMC and Albemarle concerning the scope and meaning of the agreement, and therefore, MEMC was not entitled to attorney’s fees.

Indemnification AgreementAttorney's FeesBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentExcluded ObligationAsset Purchase AgreementContract InterpretationAppellate ReviewGood Faith DisputeTexas Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holk v. Biard

Dr. Fred Hoik sought a writ of mandamus against the Honorable Webb Biard, Judge of the 6th District Court of Fannin County, Texas. Hoik requested that Judge Biard vacate an order that rescinded an arbitration agreement and its resulting decision. The initial dispute involved a 1990 contract between Dr. Hoik and Dr. Howard Witcher for the purchase of a veterinary clinic, which led to a binding arbitration agreement in 1994. The arbitrator's decision involved rescinding the sales contract and specifying financial exchanges. The trial court subsequently rescinded the arbitration agreement and decision, citing Dr. Hoik's failure to convey clinic assets as a repudiation of the agreement. This appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion, concluding that the grounds for vacating an arbitration award were not met, as the alleged fraudulent inducement pertained to the underlying contract and not the arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its order and enforce the arbitrator's decision.

MandamusArbitration AgreementContract RescissionFraudulent InducementJudicial DiscretionTexas LawCivil PracticeAppellate ReviewArbitration Award EnforcementAbuse of Discretion
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Bethbowl Corp. & Local Union 3108 United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America A.F.L.-C.I.O.

Bethbowl Corporation sought to stay arbitration initiated by a union, arguing it did not inherit a union agreement after purchasing the assets of Bethpage Bowl from Sports Arenas, Inc. The prior agreement, between the union and Sports Arenas, Inc., included an automatic renewal clause that was not terminated. The court applied Federal Labor Law principles, specifically the 'continuity of identity' standard, noting the business continued under the same name and the petitioner's president (formerly manager) was aware of the union. The court concluded that Bethbowl Corporation was bound by the agreement, dismissing the petition to stay arbitration and holding that the question of agreement termination was for the arbitrator.

Arbitration LawLabor ArbitrationCollective BargainingSuccessor EmployerCorporate Asset SaleUnion Contract RenewalFederal Labor Law ApplicationContinuity of Business IdentityCPLR 7503 (b)Stay of Arbitration
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Speed Joyeros, S.A.

The United States moved to strike the claims of former employees (petitioners) to assets in Panama. These assets were forfeited as part of a plea agreement in a money laundering and conspiracy case against Yardena Hebroni and her jewelry companies, Speed Joyeros, S.A. and Argento Vivo, S.A. The petitioners sought unpaid wages and vacation pay. Although Panamanian labor authorities ruled in their favor, the court found that the petitioners failed to comply with federal forfeiture claim procedures by not personally verifying their claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the petitioners, as general, unsecured creditors, lacked a particularized interest in specific assets at the time the criminal acts leading to forfeiture occurred, as required by 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A). Consequently, the court granted the government's motion to strike the claims.

Criminal forfeitureMoney launderingAsset forfeiturePanamanian lawUnsecured creditorsEmployee wagesForfeiture claimsJudicial discretionStatutory interpretationSecond Circuit
References
9
Case No. 15-0502
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2017

Noble Energy, Inc. v. Conocophillips Company

Justice Johnson dissents from the Court's decision, arguing that Alma's assignment of an executory Exchange Agreement in bankruptcy was not properly executed. The dissent highlights that the Exchange Agreement was not disclosed during bankruptcy, contending that general plan language is insufficient for assumption and assignment under Bankruptcy Code section 365 without explicit assumption and court approval. Johnson asserts that the risk of non-disclosure falls on the debtor, Alma, and that Noble, as the asset purchaser, should not be liable for an undisclosed indemnity obligation. The opinion concludes that the Exchange Agreement should 'ride through' bankruptcy, leaving Alma responsible for the liability, rather than Noble.

Bankruptcy LawExecutory ContractsContract AssignmentDebtor DisclosureSection 365Dissenting OpinionTexas Supreme CourtAsset Purchase AgreementIndemnificationCorporate Liability
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 4,043 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