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

Lee C. Ritchie v. Ann Caldwell Rupe, as Trustee for the Dallas Gordon Rupe, III 1995 Family Trust

This case involves Ann Rupe, a minority shareholder and trustee for Buddy's Trust, who sued other shareholders and directors of Rupe Investment Corporation (RIC) for alleged oppressive actions and breach of fiduciary duties. Rupe claimed the defendants refused to buy her shares or meet with prospective outside buyers. The trial court ordered a $7.3 million buyout, which the court of appeals affirmed in part, finding the refusal to meet prospective purchasers oppressive, but remanding on valuation. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the defendants' conduct was not 'oppressive' under the Texas receivership statute, as it did not involve an abuse of authority with intent to harm the corporation or create a serious risk of harm to it. The Court clarified that the statute only authorizes the appointment of a rehabilitative receiver and does not permit a direct buyout remedy. Additionally, the Court declined to recognize a new common-law cause of action for 'minority shareholder oppression,' citing existing statutory and common-law protections. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to consider Rupe's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim and the potential for a buyout remedy under that claim.

Shareholder OppressionMinority ShareholdersClosely Held CorporationsFiduciary DutyBusiness Judgment RuleCorporate ReceivershipStatutory InterpretationCommon Law ClaimsCorporate GovernanceStock Buyout
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shamshovich v. Shvartsman

The plaintiff initiated an action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and secured a judgment against the defendant, Samuel Racer, in 2000. This judgment, however, was not formally entered until 2010. Subsequently, in 2012, Racer moved to vacate the judgment, contending that the plaintiff had abandoned the action by failing to timely enter the judgment, citing 22 NYCRR 202.48. The Supreme Court initially granted Racer's motion without providing an explanation. Upon appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, denying Racer's motion to vacate and reinstating the original judgment. The appellate court determined that 22 NYCRR 202.48 was inapplicable as no further judicial action was required for the judgment's entry, and Racer failed to present any other valid grounds for vacatur under CPLR 5015 (a).

Fiduciary DutyJudgment VacaturAppellate ReviewProcedural RulesCivil ProcedureDefault JudgmentTimelinessRule 22 NYCRR 202.48CPLR 5015(a)Kings County
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunnagan v. Watson

This case involves an appeal between James R. Dunnagan and Joseph Earl Watson, two members of the limited partnership “Parker County’s Squaw Creek Downs, L.P.” The dispute arose from disagreements after the partnership failed to secure a horse racetrack license. Watson initially sued Dunnagan for breach of fiduciary duties and sought injunctive relief and declaratory judgment, while Dunnagan filed a cross-petition against Watson for breach of fiduciary duties. A jury found Watson breached his fiduciary duties, causing damages of $459,645.69 to the limited partnership, and also found that Dunnagan's actions made it impracticable for the limited partnership to continue, leading to its dissolution. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings regarding Watson's breach of fiduciary duties and the judicial dissolution of the partnership.

Limited PartnershipFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractJudicial DissolutionPartnership DisputeAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTrial Court JudgmentCorporate GovernanceEquitable Relief
References
36
Case No. 03-97-00434-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1998

Nicholas Van Bavel v. Oasis Design, Inc. David Knapp Constantine Ciocan And C & C Electronics, Ltd.

Nicholas van Bavel sued Oasis Design, Inc., David Knapp, Constantine Ciocan, and C&C Electronics, Ltd. for fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The jury found in van Bavel's favor, but the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's take-nothing judgment on van Bavel's individual claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract, finding legally insufficient evidence for a fiduciary relationship, detrimental reliance for fraud, and no breach of contract based on a "business sense" clause. However, the court reversed and remanded the derivative action, finding legally sufficient evidence that Knapp and Ciocan breached their fiduciary duty to Oasis Design but factually insufficient evidence to support the jury's damage award, requiring a new trial on that specific claim.

Corporate LawShareholder DisputeFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractFraudJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictAppellate ReviewDerivative ActionDamagesFactually Insufficient Evidence
References
33
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 28102
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2018

Pozner v. Fox Broadcasting Co.

Cliff Pozner, a former executive at Fox Broadcasting Company, was terminated following sexual harassment complaints from employees. Pozner subsequently initiated a lawsuit against Fox for breach of his employment contract. In response, Fox filed counterclaims alleging breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, referencing company handbooks and established policies. Pozner moved to dismiss these counterclaims, contending that the employee handbooks lacked contractual enforceability and that his actions did not constitute a breach of fiduciary duty under prevailing legal standards. The court upheld the breach of contract counterclaim, recognizing that the handbooks were explicitly integrated into Pozner's employment agreement, but dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim, stating that sexual harassment alone, without direct actions against the employer's financial interests, does not typically establish a breach of loyalty claim in New York.

Employment contractBreach of contractBreach of fiduciary dutySexual harassmentCounterclaimsMotion to dismissDuty of loyaltyCorporate policiesEmployee handbooksExecutive termination
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Willis v. Donnelly

This is a double appeal concerning shareholders’ ownership in two closely held corporations, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and attorney’s fees. Michael T. Willis, Francie Willis, Urban Retreat of Houston, Inc., and Willis Hite Enterprises, Inc. sought reversal of a judgment awarding Dan Donnelly $1.7 million for breach of contract, $1.7 million for breach of fiduciary duty, and a constructive trust. Dan Donnelly also contended the trial court erroneously awarded $400,000 in attorney’s fees in connection with his default on a loan by Mike Willis. The court affirmed the judgment for breach of fiduciary duty but remanded the constructive trust for an election of remedies. It reversed and remanded the breach of contract claim due to an improper measure of damages. The attorney’s fees awarded to both Donnelly and Mike Willis were reversed and remanded for further determination or segregation.

Shareholders DisputeClosely Held CorporationsBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesDamagesConstructive TrustStatute of LimitationsRatificationWaiver
References
133
Case No. 14-00-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2003

Michael T. Willis, Francie Willis, Willis Hite Enterprises, Inc. and Urban Retreat of Houston, Inc. v. Dan Donnelly

This case is a double appeal concerning shareholder ownership in two closely held corporations, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and attorney’s fees. Appellants Michael T. Willis, Francie Willis, Willis Hite Enterprises, Inc., and Urban Retreat of Houston, Inc., sought to overturn a judgment awarding Dan Donnelly damages for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, and a constructive trust. Cross-appellant Dan Donnelly challenged the attorney's fees awarded to Mike Willis for a defaulted loan. The court affirmed the breach of fiduciary duty judgment but reversed and remanded the breach of contract claim due to an erroneous damages instruction. The constructive trust on stock was reversed, and the trust on realty was remanded for an election of remedies. Attorney's fees for both parties were reversed and remanded for proper segregation and redetermination.

Shareholder DisputeBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractCorporate GovernanceClosely Held CorporationAttorney's FeesConstructive TrustStatute of LimitationsElection of RemediesDamages Calculation
References
121
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Ass'n of Publishers' Employees, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co.

Plaintiffs, the Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees, Inc. (IAPE) and ten Canadian employees, sued defendant Dow Jones & Company, Inc., alleging a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The plaintiffs claimed that Dow Jones violated its fiduciary obligations by changing the Profit-Sharing Retirement Plan's benefit allocation formula, which resulted in reduced benefits for Canadian employees due to currency conversion. Dow Jones argued it was not a fiduciary for this specific act or that the action was not a breach, asserting the right to amend plan contributions. The court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, found that Dow Jones's fiduciary duties under ERISA did not extend to the method of calculating employer contributions or modifying non-accrued benefits. The court concluded that both the Plan provisions and ERISA allowed prospective changes in contributions by the employer, and therefore, Dow Jones had not breached any fiduciary duty. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

ERISAFiduciary DutyProfit-Sharing PlanBenefit AllocationSummary JudgmentNon-Accrued BenefitsPlan AmendmentEmployer ContributionsCanadian EmployeesDistrict Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grodotzke v. Seaford Avenue Corp.

Plaintiffs, consisting of trustees of employee benefit plans, fiduciaries, and a union president, initiated an action against Seaford Avenue Corporation, G and M Mechanical, Inc., George Luksch, and Michael Scott. The plaintiffs sought recovery for unpaid fringe benefit contributions and alleged breach of fiduciary duty under the Labor Management Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. They contended that the corporate defendants operated as a single employer or alter egos, and that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by misusing plan assets. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss claims relating to the single employer/alter ego status, violations of the collective bargaining agreement (including double-breasting), and the individual defendants' breach of fiduciary duties. However, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief, deeming it conclusory and essentially moot.

ERISALMRAFiduciary DutyCollective Bargaining AgreementSingle EmployerAlter EgoDouble-breastingFringe BenefitsUnpaid ContributionsMotion to Dismiss
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 4,911 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