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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Honaker v. Kingsport Press, Inc.

This worker's compensation case involves an appeal by Kingsport Press, the employer, concerning a chancellor's order to pay a portion of employee Almeda Honaker's attorney's fees for temporary total disability benefits. Honaker sustained a back injury, and while her worker's compensation claim was initially denied by Kingsport Press, she received benefits under the employer's self-insured accident and sickness program. The chancellor later found the injury compensable, awarded worker's compensation benefits, and credited Kingsport Press for prior payments, but crucially ordered the employer to cover 20% of Honaker's attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed this specific order, citing T.C.A. § 50-6-226(a), which stipulates that attorney fees are to be paid by the party employing the attorney. Consequently, the award of worker's compensation benefits was affirmed, but the employer's obligation to pay attorney fees was overturned, with costs of appeal assigned to Honaker.

Worker's CompensationAttorney FeesTemporary Total DisabilityAccident and Sickness PlanEmployer LiabilitySelf-Insured PlanStatutory InterpretationChancellor's DecreeAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colucci v. New York Times Co.

The defendant, The New York Times, moved for attorneys' fees after successfully defending against the plaintiff's reverse sex discrimination and retaliation claims. The Court found the plaintiff's claims, particularly regarding discrimination (failure to apply, lack of qualifications) and retaliation (no factual basis), to be frivolous and groundless. Consequently, the Court awarded the defendant $1,500 in attorneys' fees, a reduction from the requested $33,175, acknowledging the plaintiff's limited financial capacity (earning $19,000 in 1981 with dependents). Additionally, the defendant sought to impose fees on the plaintiff's attorney for vexatiously multiplying proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. However, the Court denied this motion, finding no evidence of bad faith or egregious conduct from the attorney regarding the interrogatories, proof presentation, or communication with the court.

Reverse Sex DiscriminationRetaliationAttorneys' FeesTitle VIIFrivolous ClaimsVexatious LitigationSanctionsJudicial DiscretionPrevailing PartyFinancial Hardship
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Van Sickle

Baltasar D. Cruz sued James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report, and Katherine Haenschen for libel regarding a statement posted on the Burnt Orange Report website. The trial court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (anti-SLAPP statute) and awarded attorney's fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the libel claim, concluding that Cruz, as a public official candidate, failed to provide clear and specific evidence of actual malice. However, the appellate court reversed the award of attorney's fees to the Burnt Orange Report defendants because their attorneys provided pro bono services, meaning the fees were not 'incurred' as required by the Act. The attorney's fees awarded to James Van Sickle were affirmed.

Anti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Citizens Participation ActLibel Per SeDefamationActual MalicePublic OfficialCandidate for OfficeAttorney's FeesPro Bono RepresentationAppellate Review
References
42
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
Showing 1-10 of 6,056 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