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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

In re the Certification as Qualified Adoptive Parents Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 115-d

This case concerns Joanna K. and Scottye K.'s application to waive the mandatory certification as qualified adoptive parents for Jeremiah B., the biological son of Careese B. The K.s received physical custody of Jeremiah shortly after his birth in March 2009, prior to obtaining the required judicial certification, thereby violating New York's adoption statute. The court reviewed the convoluted history, including Careese B.'s judicial consent to adoption and the K.s' temporary custody order. However, the court denied the waiver application, emphasizing the critical importance of pre-placement certification to protect children and prevent unregulated transfers of custody. The decision stated that the petitioners failed to show good cause for waiver and that a retroactive approval of non-compliance would undermine legislative intent, although the K.s retain legal and physical custody pending the adoption petition.

Adoption Law CompliancePrivate-Placement Adoption RequirementsPre-Placement CertificationWaiver Application DenialChild Welfare LegislationFamily Law ProcedureJudicial DiscretionStatutory InterpretationParental Fitness StandardsCustody Transfer
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bradford v. Logan's Roadhouse, Inc.

This case is a proposed nationwide collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against Logan's Roadhouse, Inc., LRI Holdings, Inc., and Roadhouse Holding, Inc. Plaintiffs Carey Bradford and Cody Bolen, along with over a hundred opt-in plaintiffs, allege that LRI failed to properly compensate its tipped employees. The alleged violations include requiring tipped employees to perform non-tip producing work for sub-minimum wages, working "off-the-clock," and being forced to report "phantom tips" to avoid supplemental wage contributions. The plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a nationwide class of current and former tipped employees. The court granted the motion for conditional certification in part, finding that the plaintiffs made a "modest factual showing" that they were "similarly situated" and presented sufficient evidence of common FLSA-violating practices across LRI's restaurants in multiple states. The court also ordered LRI to provide names and addresses of potential class members for notice but denied requests for email addresses, social security numbers, and telephone numbers, as well as premature equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The parties were directed to confer on the notice and consent protocol.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Tipped EmployeesWage and Hour ViolationsCollective ActionConditional CertificationOff-the-Clock WorkMinimum WageOvertime PayEmployer PracticesClass Action Notice
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zachery v. Texaco Exploration & Production, Inc.

African-American hourly field workers sued Texaco Exploration & Production, Inc. (TEPI) for racial discrimination in promotions, wages, and training, citing violations of Title VII and Section 1981. The plaintiffs sought class certification for all African-American PG-98 hourly field workers employed by TEPI since March 23, 1991, but dropped claims for compensatory and punitive damages to enable the class action under Rule 23(b)(2). The court denied the motion, finding a lack of commonality and typicality due to TEPI's decentralized and subjective evaluation and promotion systems across numerous geographically dispersed business units. A primary concern for the court was the potential conflict of interest arising from the named plaintiffs' waiver of monetary damages, which could prejudice the absent class members' rights to seek such damages. The court also indicated that class certification would not serve judicial economy, as individual lawsuits for damages might still follow, defeating the purpose of a class action.

Class ActionEmployment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationDisparate ImpactDisparate TreatmentTitle VIISection 1981Class Certification DenialJudicial EconomyRes Judicata
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Industrial Accident Board v. Texas Workmen's Compensation Assigned Risk Pool

Appellee, The Texas Workmen’s Compensation Assigned Risk Pool, initiated a declaratory judgment suit against the Industrial Accident Board in Travis County district court. The suit sought a judicial interpretation of "legal entity" in Vernon's Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat.Ann., Art. 8308, § 18a, specifically whether it includes assumed names of workmen's compensation insureds. The district court ruled for the appellee, determining that an assumed name is not a "legal entity" under the statute. Appellant challenged this, raising issues of appellee's capacity to sue and justiciable interest, along with the substantive interpretation of "legal entity." The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, confirming that appellee had standing and that an assumed name does not constitute a legal entity for the purpose of the statute's filing fee.

Workers' CompensationAssigned Risk PoolDeclaratory JudgmentLegal EntityAssumed NamesStatutory ConstructionCapacity to SueJusticiable InterestIndustrial Accident BoardInsurance Carriers
References
8
Case No. M2004-00647-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2005

Yvonne N. Robertson v. Tennessee Board of Social Worker Certification and Licensure

The Tennessee Board of Social Worker Certification and Licensure appealed a Chancery Court decision that had set aside the Board's two-year license revocation of Yvonne N. Robertson. Robertson, a licensed clinical social worker, had her license revoked for engaging in a prohibited 'dual relationship' with a client. The Chancery Court ruled that the Board's sanctions were an abuse of discretion and arbitrary, partly due to the Board's consideration of Robertson's 1982 felony forgery conviction. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the Chancery Court's decision, determining that the Board was authorized to review its prior records and that the imposed sanction was both warranted in law and justified in fact. Consequently, the Board's original order of revocation was reinstated.

Social Worker CertificationLicense RevocationDual RelationshipUnethical ConductAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandard of ReviewProfessional EthicsAppellate Court DecisionTennessee Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2007

Kudinov v. Kel-Tech Construction Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order that partially granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that the burden of establishing class certification criteria rests with the party seeking it, and the class certification statute should be liberally construed. Despite inconsistencies in the class representative's testimony and variations in damages among different trades, the court found sufficient evidence for numerosity and commonality of claims. The decision reiterates that the inquiry into a claim's merit for class certification is limited and not a substitute for summary judgment or trial.

Class ActionClass CertificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionEvidentiary BasisNumerosityCommonalityWage DisputesUnderpayment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.

This Memorandum & Order addresses plaintiffs' objections to a Magistrate Judge's recommendations regarding class certification. Plaintiffs Andrew Parker and Eric De-Brauwere sued Time Warner Cable, alleging violations of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 by disclosing subscriber information. District Judge Glasser adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings, denying class certification for monetary claims under Rule 23(b)(2) due to the predominance of monetary relief, and denying full certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because a class action was deemed not superior given the statutory provisions for individual remedies. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims. Ultimately, the plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation were denied, and the recommendations were adopted.

Class ActionClass CertificationRule 23(b)(2)Rule 23(b)(3)Cable Communications Policy ActSubscriber PrivacyMonetary ReliefInjunctive ReliefEastern District of New YorkMagistrate Judge Recommendation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matthews v. Newspapers Inc.

Stanley B. Matthews sued Newspapers Incorporated for damages stemming from two newspaper articles published in July 1953, which he alleged were false and defamatory. The articles connected his business, the Texas Body Shop, and its employees to a "car wrecking ring" involved in insurance fraud. Matthews contended that these publications caused significant financial losses to his business and harmed his personal reputation. Although the trial court initially denied Matthews recovery, the appellate court reversed this decision. The higher court found that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a jury trial on whether the articles targeted Matthews and his business, and if he suffered damages. Additionally, the appellate court ruled that Matthews' failure to file an assumed name certificate did not preclude his right to pursue the lawsuit.

DefamationLibelNewspaper LiabilityBusiness DamagesReputation DamagesAssumed Name CertificatePrivileged PublicationAppellate ReviewReversed and RemandedJury Question
References
7
Case No. M2003-02647-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2005

Tennessee Insurance Guaranty Association v. Centre Insurance Company

The Tennessee Insurance Guaranty Association (TIGA) sued Centre Insurance Company, seeking to be exonerated from workers' compensation obligations it assumed after Commercial Compensation Insurance Company's insolvency. TIGA contended that Centre was liable due to its predecessor's name appearing on Form I-1 certificates of insurance, despite Commercial Compensation issuing the actual policies. The trial court granted summary judgment to Centre, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court distinguished the case from controlling precedent, holding that TIGA, as a statutory successor to an insolvent insurer, could not assert claims against Centre that the insolvent insurer itself did not possess. The court emphasized that TIGA inherits the rights and obligations of the insolvent insurer, and since Commercial Compensation Insurance Company had no claim against BICO/Centre, TIGA also had none.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceInsurance Company InsolvencyGuaranty AssociationsSummary Judgment AffirmationStatutory InterpretationAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Policy CertificationSuccessor Rights and ObligationsEmployer Insurance LiabilityTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,398 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