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. No. 75 B 1735
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1976

In Re WT Grant Co.

This case from the U.S. District Court, S.D. New York, addresses three appeals related to the bankruptcy estate of W. T. Grant Company. Paul S. Berger, Trustee, and other plaintiffs-appellants challenged a Bankruptcy Court order dismissing their amended complaint. They also appealed the denial of their motions for a nunc pro tunc extension to file a notice of appeal and for reconsideration of that denial. District Judge Irving Ben Cooper granted the defendant trustee Charles G. Rodman's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' initial appeal, ruling it was untimely filed 18 days after the Bankruptcy Court's order, exceeding the 10-day limit with a 30-day absolute maximum. The court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's subsequent denials of the extension and reconsideration motions, emphasizing the strict interpretation of Bankruptcy Rules 801, 802, and 803 to ensure the expeditious and final administration of bankrupt estates.

Bankruptcy AppealTimelinessNotice of AppealExcusable NeglectJurisdictional DefectBankruptcy Rules 801Bankruptcy Rules 802Bankruptcy Rules 803Finality of OrdersTrustee in Bankruptcy
References
10
Case No. 06-02-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2004

Russell Burke and Wife, Lori Burke, and Bob Anderson, as Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee v. Union Pacific Resources Company, N/K/A Anadarko E & P Company, Palestine Water Well Service, Inc. and Jere Pritchett

This case concerns an appeal regarding property damage to a water well caused by seismic testing. The appellants, Russell and Lori Burke and their bankruptcy trustee, sued Union Pacific Resources Company (UPRC) and Palestine Water Well Service, Inc. (PWW). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the Burkes' negligence claim and PWW's tortious interference claim were barred by the statute of limitations. For the Burkes' breach of contract claim, the court found the $1.5 million jury award factually insufficient, suggesting a remittitur. Following the acceptance of a $653,700.00 remittitur by the Burkes, the judgment was modified and affirmed, resulting in a recovery of $842,300.00 for the Burkes and a take-nothing judgment for PWW.

Property DamageSeismic TestingWater WellCattle FeedlotBreach of ContractNegligenceTortious InterferenceStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleDamages
References
74
Case No. 2-04-255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2005

Anton Antonov and Tanev & Son Trucking v. Sonja Walters and Shawn Brown, in His Capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Delbert and Sonya Walters

The appellants, Anton Antonov and Tanev & Son Trucking, appealed a judgment in favor of Sonja Walters and Shawn Brown. Appellants raised three issues: Sonja Walters' lack of standing due to her bankruptcy, the trial court's denial of Shawn Brown's intervention, and the legal and factual insufficiency of evidence for Sonja's future medical expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Sonja had standing because her claims were properly exempted from the bankruptcy estate, Brown's intervention was timely as it related back to Sonja's original suit, and sufficient evidence supported the jury's award for future medical expenses given Sonja's permanent brain injury and ongoing treatment.

BankruptcyStandingInterventionFuture Medical ExpensesSufficiency of EvidencePersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentExemptionsChapter 7 TrusteeAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sommers v. Concepcion

Ronald Sommers, trustee of Vicente Velasquez's bankruptcy estate, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of the Concepcions and a denial of a recusal motion, which also included sanctions against the Trustee's counsel. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, finding that the Concepcions' counterclaims were void due to an automatic bankruptcy stay, thereby rendering the judgment final. The court further held that Velasquez's prior state court suit dismissal with prejudice invoked res judicata, barring the Trustee's current claims for attorney's fees. While affirming the denial of the recusal motion against Judge Elliott, the court reversed the sanctions imposed on the Trustee's counsel, concluding that the motion was not filed solely for delay.

Bankruptcy LawAttorney Fees DisputeRes JudicataAutomatic StaySummary Judgment AppealJudicial RecusalSanctions LitigationTexas Appellate LawFrivolous LitigationTrustee Powers
References
48
Case No. 2-05-237-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2006

Donald E. Kilpatrick and Pamela Gale Johnson, Trustee v. Timothy S. Kilpatrick, Kevin K. Kilpatrick, Kilpatrick Limited Partnership, Kilpatrick Ventures, Ltd., Shamrock Investments, L.L.C., KSR Family, Ltd., KMK Family, Ltd., BPC Holding Corp., Pescor, Inc., and Berry Plastics Corporation

Donald E. Kilpatrick and Trustee Pamela Gale Johnson appealed a summary judgment ruling regarding Don's claims over Pescor stock. Don alleged fraudulent acquisition of his stock by his brothers, Timothy and Kevin Kilpatrick, who supposedly misrepresented the need for the stock and failed to disclose a potential sale of Pescor to BPC Holding Corp. The trial court's summary judgment stated Don lacked standing for 900 shares due to non-disclosure in prior bankruptcies, thus remaining assets of the bankruptcy estate. The appellate court affirmed, emphasizing disclosure importance in bankruptcy and that undisclosed assets do not revest with the debtor, upholding that Don lacked standing upon filing the lawsuit. Additionally, the appellate court dismissed arguments about the Trustee's consent or amended pleadings retroactively curing Don's initial lack of standing.

Stock ownership disputeBankruptcy lawJudicial estoppelStanding doctrineCorporate fraudUndisclosed assetsChapter 13 bankruptcySummary judgment reviewAppellate procedureFiduciary duty
References
27
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04714 [140 AD3d 958]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2016

Matter of Klein v. Pereira

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Abraham Klein to confirm an arbitration award dated March 31, 2009. John S. Pereira, as Bankruptcy Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Christine Persaud, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the petition to confirm the award and denied his motion to vacate it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, concluding that the appellant failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator had exceeded their power. The court noted that the arbitration clause was broad, granting the arbitrator authority to resolve 'any business dispute.'

arbitration awardCPLR article 75vacate arbitrationconfirm arbitrationarbitrator's powerappellate reviewKings Countybusiness disputebankruptcy trusteeagreement terms
References
5
Case No. 06-02-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2004

Joseph Dewayne Caster v. State

Russell Burke, Lori Burke, and Bob Anderson (as bankruptcy trustee), collectively 'the Burkes,' sued Union Pacific Resources Company (UPRC), Palestine Water Well Service, Inc. (PWW), and Jere Pritchett for damages to their water well and resulting cattle losses following seismic testing. The Burkes alleged negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, and DTPA violations. UPRC cross-appealed, and PWW filed a cross-action against UPRC for tortious interference. The jury initially awarded the Burkes $1.5 million in actual damages and $3 million in punitive damages, and PWW $200,000 for tortious interference. On appeal, the court ruled that the Burkes' negligence claim and PWW's tortious interference claim were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court found the jury's damage award for the Burkes' breach of contract claim to be factually insufficient, entitling UPRC to a settlement credit. The court suggested a remittitur, conditionally affirming a reduced judgment for the Burkes if accepted, or else remanding the case for a new trial on damages.

Seismic SurveyWater Well DamageBreach of ContractNegligenceStatute of LimitationsTortious InterferenceCross-AppealDamagesRemittiturFactual Sufficiency
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ochs v. Nemes (In Re Nemes)

The Trustee, Martin P. Ochs, initiated an adversary proceeding against the Debtor, Menachem M. Nemes, seeking to deny his Chapter 7 discharge under various sections of the Bankruptcy Code, primarily 727(a)(3) for failure to keep adequate records and 727(a)(5) for failure to explain asset deficiency. The Trustee filed a motion for summary judgment on these two causes of action. The Debtor argued his failure to maintain records was justified due to his limited education, low income, and lack of intent to declare bankruptcy, as well as living in a small apartment. The Court found the Debtor's justifications unpersuasive, noting his consistent employment, rabbinical degree, and operation of a counseling business, which countered the claim of unsophistication. The Court determined that the Debtor's incomplete credit card records, accounting for over two-thirds of his substantial unsecured debt, prevented the Trustee from ascertaining his financial condition. Consequently, the Court granted the Trustee's motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action, denying the Debtor's discharge under Section 727(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.

BankruptcyChapter 7Discharge DenialSummary JudgmentFinancial RecordsDebtor's DutyRecord KeepingJustificationUnsecured DebtTrustee's Motion
References
30
Case No. 07-03-0307-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2005

Mabel Walter Rogers, Larry Frank Walter, Co-Trustee, Robert Wayne Veigel, Co-Trustee, Dorothy Ann Veigel Oswald and Jo Ann Veigel Eudy v. in Re: Ardella Veigel Inter Vivos Trust No. 2, Amarillo National Bank, Amarillo, Texas, Co-Trustee

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Amarillo National Bank (ANB) concerning various estates, trusts, and management agreements. The primary appellant, Robert Wayne Veigel (R.W.), contended that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, preventing him from pursuing counterclaims and requesting an accounting. R.W. argued that interests bequeathed by Charles R. Veigel were life estates, not trust interests, and challenged ANB's trustee fees and the lack of an accounting. The appellate court modified the summary judgment to declare that Charles Veigel's will granted life estates free of trust but affirmed the summary judgment regarding the statute of limitations barring R.W.'s claims for disgorgement of fees, accounting, and damages.

Trust LawLife EstatesStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyAccountingInter Vivos TrustTestamentary TrustProperty CodeCivil Practice and Remedies Code
References
12
Case No. 16 Civ. 5813
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.)

This appeal was brought by RMBS Trustees against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) challenging a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order from June 27, 2016. The order disallowed and expunged certain proofs of claim filed by the RMBS Trustees against LBHI. The RMBS Trustees argued that the order was based on a claims resolution protocol that did not apply to some of their claims and that it preserved their right to prove certain claims through statistical sampling. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order, concluding that the RMBS Trustees had effectively abandoned their 'Transferor Loan' claims by not submitting them under the established Protocol. Additionally, the court found that the RMBS Trustees' attempt to reserve 11,000 'Covered Loan' claims for statistical sampling, without first submitting the required documentation under the Protocol, was not permissible. The court emphasized that the RMBS Trustees had multiple opportunities to clarify the Protocol's scope or pursue their claims but failed to do so, thus upholding the expungement.

Bankruptcy ClaimsRMBS LitigationStatistical SamplingClaims ProtocolLoan Repurchase AgreementsExpungement OrderDue Process RightsAppellate ReviewSecuritized MortgagesCreditor Claims
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 864 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