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. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1981

Lindamood v. Link-Belt Corp.

This case addresses a motion filed by the Plaintiffs' attorney for an award of attorney's fees, to be paid out of the Intervenor First Employees Insurance Company's recovery in a settlement agreement. The attorney's claim was based on Article 8307, Section 6a of the Texas Worker’s Compensation and Crime Victims’ Compensation Law. The Court denied the motion, finding that the Intervenor's interest was actively represented by its own attorneys who actively participated in obtaining the recovery. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' attorney was not entitled to a portion of the Intervenor's subrogation recovery, especially given that the interests of the Plaintiffs and Intervenor were not always aligned and the Intervenor's counsel independently secured the full satisfaction of its subrogation claim.

Attorney's FeesWorker's CompensationSubrogationSettlement AgreementInterventionActive RepresentationTexas LawInsurance CarrierLegal FeesThird-Party Tortfeasor
References
2
Case No. 13-10-00016-CV, 13-10-00023-CV, 13-10-00059-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Cascos v. Cameron County Attorney

This case consolidates three interlocutory appeals primarily involving a dispute between the Cameron County Commissioners Court and the Cameron County Attorney. Appellants, comprising county officials and attorneys, challenged trial court orders that granted a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction against them, favoring the County Attorney, and denied their plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court conditionally granted the appellants' petition for writ of mandamus, ensuring their right to supersede the temporary injunction during appeal. While dismissing an appeal regarding the temporary restraining orders as moot, the court ultimately dissolved the temporary injunction and reversed the trial court's judgment. The court concluded that the Commissioners Court possesses implied powers to manage county business and employ legal counsel, and the County Attorney does not hold an exclusive right to represent the county in all civil matters, thereby finding the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.

Interlocutory AppealMandamusTemporary InjunctionGovernmental Entity DisputeCounty Attorney DutiesCommissioners Court AuthorityDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory InterpretationRes JudicataMootness Doctrine
References
106
Case No. 03-12-00309-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2013

Larry F. York// Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation and Greg Abbott, Attorney General for the State of Texas v. Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation And Greg Abbott, Attorney General for the State of Texas// Cross- Larry F. York

This case involves Larry F. York's challenge to an Attorney General's open-records ruling concerning the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation (TGSL). York sought disclosure of various TGSL records, including board meeting minutes, a Strategic Plan, President's Reports, EAS-related documents, and a VFA application. The district court ordered disclosure of the actual minutes and EAS records but allowed TGSL to withhold attachments, the Strategic Plan, President's Reports, and pricing information from the VFA application. The Court of Appeals largely sided with York, affirming the disclosure of minutes and EAS records and reversing to order disclosure of the Strategic Plan, President's Reports, and other minute attachments. However, it affirmed the withholding of VFA pricing information and the denial of attorney's fees to York.

Open Meetings ActPublic Information ActGovernment TransparencyStudent LoansGovernmental RecordsCompetitive HarmDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesStatutory ConstructionAppellate Review
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Relativity Fashion, LLC

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a motion for attorneys' fees and expenses filed by Relativity Media, LLC (and its affiliates RML Distribution Domestic, LLC, Armored Car Productions, LLC, and DR Productions, LLC, collectively 'Relativity') and Mr. Ryan Kavanaugh against Netflix, Inc. The dispute arose from Netflix's refusal to execute 'Date Extension Amendments' related to a License Agreement, prompting Relativity to seek relief under Section 1142 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court previously ruled that Netflix was barred by res judicata and judicial estoppel from asserting its claimed contractual rights to distribute films before theatrical release. In this opinion, the Court determined that Relativity was the 'prevailing party' under California Civil Code Section 1717 and the License Agreement's fee provision. Consequently, Relativity is entitled to reimbursement for its own reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. However, the Court denied Mr. Kavanaugh's request for reimbursement of his counsel's fees and expenses, concluding that he was not a party to the License Agreement and did not meet the exceptions for non-signatories to recover fees. The Court awarded Relativity $818,547.48, comprising $795,732.50 in attorneys’ fees and $22,814.98 in litigation expenses, against Netflix.

Attorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesContract LawCalifornia Civil Code Section 1717Bankruptcy Code Section 1142Prevailing PartyLodestar MethodHourly RatesJudicial EstoppelRes Judicata
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roeglin v. Daves

The district court initially found a valid and enforceable Rule 11 agreement where Alfred and Sandra Daves settled claims against Scott Roeglin for injuries Alfred Daves sustained in an automobile collision. The Daveses appealed, asserting no such agreement existed, while Roeglin appealed the denial of attorney's fees. The dispute revolved around a series of letters exchanged between the Daveses, Universal Underwriters Insurance Company (Alfred Daves's worker's compensation carrier), and Roeglin, which Roeglin contended formed a binding Rule 11 agreement. The appellate court, after reviewing the correspondence, concluded that the letters did not satisfy the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for an agreement between the Daveses and Roeglin. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's judgment dismissing the Daveses' action against Roeglin, remanding that portion for further proceedings, and affirmed the denial of Roeglin's attorney's fees.

Rule 11 AgreementSettlement AgreementContract EnforcementAppellate ReviewAttorney's FeesSubrogation ClaimWorkers' CompensationAutomobile CollisionTexas Civil ProcedureStatute of Frauds
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Attorney General of the State v. Johnson

The Attorney General appealed a judgment awarding Johnson attorney's fees and court costs after a trial court found the Attorney General's fraud claim against Johnson, regarding worker's compensation benefits, to be frivolous. The Attorney General argued that article 8307, section 9a exempted his agency from liability under Chapter 105, that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, and that Johnson's motion for fees did not comply with section 105.003. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Chapter 105 is applicable to the Attorney General, that the claim lacked arguable basis as Johnson's form did not inquire about other employment and continuous work during benefits was not wrongful, and that Johnson's motion was timely and procedurally compliant.

Attorney's FeesFrivolous ClaimsWorker's Compensation FraudAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationFraudulent ConcealmentTrial Court Judgment AffirmedLitigation ExpensesState Agency Liability
References
5
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03883 [218 AD3d 24]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2023

Matter of Ellenberg

Robert L. Ellenberg, an attorney, was charged with professional misconduct by the Attorney Grievance Committee, including improper notarization, unauthorized signing and submission of settlement documents, neglect, and failure to communicate with a client. The parties reached a joint agreement for a two-month suspension, which the Appellate Division, First Department, granted. The court considered Ellenberg's conditional admissions, prior admonition, and substantial experience as aggravating factors, balanced by mitigating factors such as cooperation, remorse, absence of selfish motive, and his long, generally unblemished career, concluding that a two-month suspension was appropriate for his two acts of deception.

Attorney Disciplinary ActionProfessional MisconductNotarization IrregularitiesUnauthorized Document SubmissionClient Communication FailureNeglect of Legal MatterForged SignaturesTwo-Month SuspensionAppellate Division DecisionMitigation Factors
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Marin v. Constitution Realty, LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the division of attorneys' fees among Sheryl Menkes (appellant), David B. Golomb, and Jeffrey A. Manheimer (respondents). Menkes, attorney of record for plaintiffs in a personal injury action, had agreements with both Golomb and Manheimer for fee sharing. The primary dispute concerned Golomb's share, contingent on whether the case settled at a specific mediation session (12% fee) or later (40% fee). The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the contract unambiguous that the mediation session concluded on a specific date, entitling Golomb to the higher fee, and that Manheimer was entitled to 20% as per his agreement. The court rejected Menkes's arguments based on contract interpretation and professional conduct rules.

Attorney's FeesContract InterpretationMediation AgreementFee DisputePersonal Injury ActionQuantum MeruitProfessional ConductNew York LawSettlement NegotiationsStructured Settlement
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 7,965 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