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. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of M.C.R.

This case involves an appeal by the Attorney General challenging a district court's allocation of prejudgment interest on child support arrearages owed by Lisa Harris to Michael Riou. Initially, a child support master awarded the arrearages but split the accrued interest equally between Harris and Riou, seeking an equitable resolution. The district court adopted this ruling. The appellate court, finding the Attorney General had standing due to its role as a Title IV-D agency and an assignment of rights, determined that the trial court lacked the discretion to modify or reduce statutory prejudgment interest on child support arrearages. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and remanded for recalculation to include all accrued interest.

child supportprejudgment interestchild support arrearagesstandingFamily Codeappellate reviewjudicial discretionequityTexas lawTitle IV-D services
References
28
Case No. 13-07-165-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2007

in Re: Juan Angel Guerra, District and County Attorney for Willacy County, State of Texas

The case involves Juan Angel Guerra, District Attorney of Willacy County, seeking a writ of mandamus against Judge Migdalia Lopez for appointing Gustavo Garza as attorney pro tem to investigate Guerra's alleged misconduct. Guerra argued the judge abused her discretion by not following removal procedures under Chapter 87 of the Texas Local Government Code, appointing an attorney pro tem without his consent, and not providing notice or a hearing. The court overruled most issues but conditionally granted mandamus relief to vacate Garza's appointment due to his conflict of interest and potential role as a witness, particularly concerning allegations of voter fraud in an election where Garza was Guerra's opponent. The court also denied motions for contempt and sanctions.

MandamusAttorney Pro TemJudicial DiscretionConflict of InterestGrand Jury InvestigationDue ProcessOfficial MisconductVoter FraudDisqualification of ProsecutorTexas Law
References
89
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
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. 02-15-00044-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2016

in the Interest of M.C. and A.C., Minor Children

In this case, R.C. appealed the trial court's judgment for S.G. regarding past-due child support. The dispute originated from a 1986 divorce decree ordering R.C. to pay child support, which S.G. sought to collect over two decades later. The trial court initially awarded S.G. $139,976.43, but this order was later set aside, and a new trial was granted. Subsequently, the trial court signed a judgment for S.G. in the amount of $146,437.56, plus interest, attorney's fees, and court costs. R.C. challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the arrearages calculation and the award of attorney's fees, and also requested a payout schedule. The appellate court affirmed the attorney's fees and the decision not to establish a payout schedule, but reversed the amount of child support arrearages, rendering judgment for S.G. in the amount of $104,862.27, which was the amount R.C. had stipulated to.

Child Support ArrearagesFamily LawAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceInterest CalculationAttorney's FeesDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialWage AssignmentChild Support Enforcement
References
38
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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2007

Willard J. Price Associates, LLC v. Stateside Construction, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning the denial of Stateside's motion to dismiss indemnification and contribution claims brought by Price. Price, the site owner, had settled an underlying personal injury action and subsequently sued its construction manager, Stateside, based on an indemnity clause. Stateside argued that a conflict of interest warranted dismissal, stemming from a previous attorney disqualification in the underlying action where an attorney hired by Price's insurer sued Stateside. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, distinguishing the current case by noting that while a key individual (Moragianis) wholly owned Proto (Price's property manager) and Stateside, he only held a minority interest in Price, thereby mitigating the alleged conflict of interest, especially with the retention of new, independent counsel.

IndemnificationContributionConflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationCorporate OwnershipLLCInsuranceConstruction WorkerPersonal InjuryThird-Party Action
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 8,317 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