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

Yeshiva University v. New England Educational Institute, Inc.

In a Lanham Act action, defendants, who prevailed after a jury trial against plaintiff Yeshiva, sought approximately $50,000 in attorney's fees. The application presented a novel question: whether a prevailing defendant is entitled to fees when the plaintiff's liability claims were asserted in good faith but the damage claims were grossly exaggerated. The court first affirmed the applicability of the Lanham Act's attorney fee provision, § 35(a), to actions involving unregistered marks, citing precedent. Despite acknowledging the plaintiff's highly exaggerated damage claims, the court determined that the case, which was close on the merits regarding the initial copying allegations, did not meet the 'exceptional cases' standard required for awarding attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant. Consequently, the defendants' application for attorney's fees was denied.

Lanham ActAttorney's FeesPrevailing DefendantExceptional CasesUnregistered MarkDamage ClaimsExaggerated DamagesGood Faith LitigationJury VerdictNon-profit Dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Co. of North America v. Stuebing

This case involves a dispute between an injured worker's attorneys and the Insurance Company of North America (INA), the insurer under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, concerning attorney's fees. INA had paid benefits to Mrs. Joseph C. Stuebing and later joined her attorneys, Cantey, Hanger, Gooch, Munn & Collins, to recover common law damages from a third-party tort-feasor. The third-party suit was settled for $100,000, with INA receiving $34,090.21, its full subrogated amount. The trial court awarded $5,500 in attorney's fees against INA, which INA appealed, arguing the award was excessive or unwarranted given that the settlement amount was initially offered before the attorneys' involvement. The appellate court reversed and remanded the judgment due to insufficient evidence regarding the value of the attorneys' time, while otherwise upholding the principle that an insurer can be liable for a portion of the employee's attorney's fees under certain circumstances.

Attorney's FeesWorkers' Compensation ActSubrogation RightsThird-Party Tort-feasorInsufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewReversal and RemandSettlement AgreementContingent FeeInsurance Carrier
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sara Lee Corp. v. Bags of New York, Inc.

Sara Lee Corporation filed an action claiming defendants produced and sold counterfeit trademarked Coach Leatherware products, violating the Trademark Act of 1946. Following defendants' failure to respond, a default judgment was entered, and the court retained jurisdiction to determine damages. Despite court orders, seizures, and civil contempt findings, defendant Nabil Helou and his associated businesses persisted in their counterfeiting activities. The court, noting the defendants' willful infringement, efforts to mislead, and defiance of deterrence, awarded Sara Lee $750,000 in statutory damages and $46,045.63 in attorney fees and costs.

Trademark InfringementCounterfeitingStatutory DamagesAttorney FeesWillful InfringementDefault JudgmentInjunctive ReliefDeterrencePunitive DamagesCivil Contempt
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Willson v. Shannon

Plaintiffs Helene Smith Willson and Arlyn-ra Edward brought an action against the Defendant Army for gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. A jury found that the Army discriminated against them by denying access to a real estate appraiser's position and unlawfully retaliated after their complaints. The Court denied the Defendant's motion for a new trial, upholding the jury's verdict and rejecting arguments against retroactivity of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the scope of damages. The Plaintiffs' motions for judgment, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief were granted, with the Court awarding substantial damages for back pay, front pay, and mental anguish, along with attorney's fees. Additionally, the Defendant was permanently enjoined from further discriminatory or retaliatory conduct, and preferential placement was ordered for the Plaintiffs in the Galveston district office.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Gender DiscriminationJury TrialAttorney's FeesInjunctive ReliefFront PayBack Pay
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2017

Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. Laura G. Rodriguez

Laura G. Rodriguez sued her former employer, the Office of the Attorney General of Texas (OAG), for retaliatory discharge under the Texas Whistleblower Act. A jury found in Rodriguez's favor, awarding her actual damages and attorney's fees. The OAG appealed, contending the evidence was insufficient to prove her whistleblower report was the 'but for' cause of her termination and that she failed to mitigate damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding ample evidence, including negative attitudes from decision-makers, disparate treatment of similarly-situated employees, and false stated reasons for termination, to support the jury's finding of causation. The court also concluded the OAG failed to meet its burden in proving Rodriguez did not mitigate her damages regarding the front-pay award.

Whistleblower ActRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawCausationMitigation of DamagesFront PayBack PayTexas Government CodeInsurance Fraud AllegationEmployee Termination
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF RHODE ISLAND

This case examines whether attorney fees can be recovered from a workers’ compensation carrier under TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 2226, in addition to fees already awarded under art. 8306, § 7c. The appellant argued that a workers' compensation claim against the carrier, based on a contract, should allow for additional attorney fees under article 2226. However, the court ruled against this, citing that article 2226 is not applicable when attorney fees are already available through other specific statutes. The decision referenced prior cases like Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Burke, which established that article 2226 excludes claims against insurance companies where other statutes provide for attorney fees. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of additional attorney fees.

Attorney FeesWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationTexas Civil StatutesInsurance Contracts ExclusionLegislative IntentAppellate ReviewLegal PrecedentIndemnityCarrier Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King v. Allied Vision, Ltd.

This case involves a plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees following a remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff Stephen King sought fees due to defendant New Line Cinema's contempt of court for numerous violations of a Final Consent Decree concerning the misattribution of 'The Lawnmower Man' film. The District Court had previously found the defendant in contempt and awarded fees in 1994 and 1995. The Second Circuit affirmed some parts of the 1994 order but vacated others, along with the entire 1995 order, remanding the attorney's fees issue for reconsideration, specifically questioning the willfulness of the noncompliance. Upon review, this court concluded that while the defendant's conduct was negligent and contumacious, it did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard for willfulness required for an award of attorney's fees for civil contempt under Second Circuit law. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees was denied.

Civil ContemptAttorney's FeesWillfulness StandardSecond Circuit RemandConsent Decree ViolationsLanham ActFilm MisattributionThe Lawnmower ManInjunctive ReliefCompensatory Damages
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2005

In Re Balderas

This decision addresses post-confirmation attorneys' fees in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, using the Balderas case as a factual background. The debtors in the Balderas case sought modification of their plan due to payment defaults and requested $350 in attorney's fees for the motion. The court outlines the history of the Balderas' numerous modifications, moratoriums, and associated attorney fee awards, totaling $3,495, highlighting how these fees were paid out of plan distributions at the expense of creditors. The court analyzes sections 1326(b)(1) and 330(a)(4)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code to determine the reasonableness and payment method of such fees. Ultimately, the court establishes new rules for post-confirmation attorney fee awards in the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, including a $2,500 prima facie base fee, a $100 per month payment rate for additional fees, and specific guidelines for various types of motions. The current $350 fee request for the Balderas case's moratorium is approved but with caution against future similar requests.

BankruptcyChapter 13Attorneys' FeesPost-Confirmation FeesPlan ModificationCreditor DistributionsSecured ClaimsAdministrative ExpensesDebtor RepresentationFeasibility
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buscher v. Bulldog Steel Products

Buscher, an injured worker, settled his workers' compensation claim with Texas General Indemnity (TGI). He and TGI then successfully pursued a third-party action against Bulldog Steel and Bobby Bryant, resulting in a $100,000 settlement, with TGI recouping its $49,000 subrogation interest and Buscher receiving $51,000. Buscher's attorney, Sam Chase, received a contingency fee from Buscher's portion but was denied a statutory attorney's fee from TGI's subrogation recovery by the trial court. Chase appealed, arguing his efforts benefited TGI by making the settlement possible. The appellate court agreed that Chase's services did benefit TGI to some extent, citing the statute requiring apportionment of fees when both claimant's and association's attorneys actively participate. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for the proper apportionment of attorney's fees.

Worker's CompensationAttorney's FeesSubrogationThird-Party ActionTexas LawInsurance CarrierSettlementLegal ServicesBenefitJudicial Discretion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zizolfo v. Western Electric Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on November 29, 1978, concerning an attorney's fee. The claimant's attorney, designated as the appellant, sought an additional $1,500 fee, contending that the initial $500 awarded by a referee was inadequate. The Board, however, determined that the appellant had been sufficiently compensated for services rendered. The appellate court, referencing section 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Law, affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that its determination on attorney's fees would only be disturbed if the fee was arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably low. Finding no such grounds, the court upheld the Board's original ruling.

Attorney's FeesAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionFee DisputeJudicial DiscretionCompensation AwardsLegal ServicesAffirmationAdministrative Appeal
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 9,444 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