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
Sep 30, 1988

Perez v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

The case involves a class action lawsuit filed by 310 Hispanic Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), led by named plaintiff Bernardo Perez, alleging national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court found a pattern and practice of discrimination within the FBI concerning conditions of employment and promotional opportunities for Hispanic agents. Specifically, the court highlighted the disproportionate burden placed on Hispanic agents for Spanish language-related assignments (like wiretaps and undercover work), which adversely affected their career advancement. The promotional system, with its excessive subjective elements and lack of EEO compliance mechanisms, was deemed discriminatory. The court also found that the FBI retaliated against Bernardo Perez for filing an EEO complaint, including the misuse of a Grand Jury subpoena during an administrative investigation against him. However, claims of religious discrimination and class-wide administrative discipline and transfer discrimination were not substantiated.

National Origin DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationCivil Rights ActDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactRetaliationFBIClass ActionPromotional SystemSubjective Evaluations
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Companies v. Sears

In this case, James Sears, an at-will independent insurance agent, sued Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Companies for negligent investigation and intentional infliction of emotional distress after his termination following an investigation into alleged kickback schemes. The trial court found Farm Bureau liable, and the court of appeals affirmed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim but remanded the negligent investigation claim. The Texas Supreme Court reversed both holdings. It declined to recognize a negligent-investigation cause of action for at-will agents, asserting it would contradict the at-will employment doctrine. Furthermore, the Court determined that Farm Bureau’s conduct, including its investigation and post-termination actions, did not amount to the extreme and outrageous behavior required for intentional infliction of emotional distress in an employment context. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment that Sears take nothing.

At-will employmentNegligent investigationIntentional infliction of emotional distressInsurance fraudIndependent agentTermination of employmentEmployer liabilityTexas lawWorkplace investigationTort law
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Companies v. Sears

James Sears, an insurance agent, reported a 'kickback' scheme involving Texas Farm Bureau. After being implicated, investigated, and fired, Farm Bureau continued punitive actions against him, including involving federal agencies and attempting to revoke his license. Sears and his wife sued for defamation, negligent investigation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury awarded damages for all claims. On appeal, the court reversed the findings for negligent and gross negligent investigation due to factually insufficient evidence. However, the court affirmed the judgment for intentional infliction of emotional distress, citing the company's extreme and outrageous post-termination conduct.

Negligent InvestigationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAt-Will EmploymentEmployee TerminationWhistleblower ProtectionInsurance FraudAppellate ReviewJury VerdictCompensatory DamagesPunitive Damages
References
35
Case No. No. 11-12-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Alfred Elwess v. Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas and Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company

Alfred Elwess, injured in an auto accident, sought to recover under his underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas and Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Appellees). The Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Elwess failed to obtain permission to settle with the tortfeasor and that his damages were covered by workers' compensation. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Appellees. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence that Elwess's failure to obtain permission materially prejudiced the Appellees' subrogation rights and that his damages were payable under workers' compensation, especially since his employer did not have such coverage. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentUnderinsured Motorist (UIM)Insurance Coverage DisputeSettlement Without Consent ExclusionSubrogation RightsWorkers' Compensation ExclusionMaterial BreachActual PrejudiceAppellate ReviewDe Novo Review
References
7
Case No. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Education Foundation, Dan Parsons, Chris Church, Church Enterprises, Inc., Gary Milleson, Ronald N. McMillan, D' Artagnan Bebel, Mark Goldie, Cha v. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hetzler v. Record/Information Dissemination Section, Federal Bureau of Investigation

This case involves a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by pro se plaintiff Déirdre McKiernan Hetzler seeking records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) concerning her father. The FBI released some documents, redacted others, and withheld some entirely, citing various FOIA exemptions including national security, internal agency rules, and protection of confidential sources and third-party privacy. Plaintiff challenged the breadth of these redactions. The Court conducted an in camera review of the withheld documents and, after evaluating the asserted exemptions, granted in part and denied in part both the defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's cross-motion, ordering the FBI to re-process and re-release certain documents where redactions were deemed unjustified.

FOIANational SecurityClassified InformationRedactionSummary JudgmentPrivacy InterestsConfidential SourcesFBIGovernment RecordsDeclassified Documents
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Proceedings Special Investigation 1198/82

The Bureau of Community Services, an authorized child care agency, moved to quash a subpoena issued by the District Attorney for confidential records concerning three children believed to be victims of crimes, sought in a Grand Jury investigation. The Bureau argued these records were protected by various privileges, including social worker/client, attorney/client, physician/patient, and Social Services Law § 372. The District Attorney contended that the social worker/client privilege did not apply to child victims under CPLR 4508 (subd 3). The court, citing precedent from *Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings (Doe)*, ruled that evidentiary privileges, though important, should not obstruct legitimate Grand Jury investigations into criminal activity, especially when the Grand Jury operates in secrecy. Consequently, the motion to quash the subpoena was denied in all respects. The court did order the District Attorney to photocopy the subpoenaed materials and return the originals to the agency within five working days.

SubpoenaMotion to QuashConfidentialitySocial Worker-Client PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeGrand Jury InvestigationChild VictimsSocial Services LawCPLR
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New Alliance Party v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Plaintiff New Alliance Party (NAP) sued the FBI, alleging that the FBI characterized NAP as a “political cult” and investigated it, thereby chilling their First Amendment rights. NAP contended the investigation, initiated in 1988 based on uncorroborated allegations, and a later inquiry in 1991, harmed the party's public image and political competitiveness. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which the court converted to a motion for summary judgment. The court found NAP lacked constitutional standing, failing to demonstrate actual or threatened injury directly traceable to the FBI's actions, noting NAP members continued significant political activities. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationPolitical PartyFBI InvestigationConstitutional StandingSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSovereign ImmunityFreedom of Information Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. New York State Commission of Investigation

Petitioners, Suffolk County District Attorney Patrick Henry and Assistant DA Raymond G. Perini, initiated a proceeding against the New York State Commission of Investigation (S.I.C.) and its chairman, David G. Trager. They alleged the S.I.C. overstepped its jurisdiction, interfered with the DA's duties, and violated their constitutional and statutory rights during a two-year probe into the Suffolk County Police Department and DA's office. Petitioners sought various forms of relief, including declaratory judgments, injunctive relief, and pre-release judicial review of the S.I.C.'s report. The court denied motions for intervention and discovery, concluding that the S.I.C. is a purely investigative body without adjudicatory or prosecutorial powers, thus upholding its enabling act's constitutionality and denying all of the petitioners' requested relief. The court granted the respondents' cross-motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Investigatory PowersDue Process RightsJurisdictional DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefCertiorari ReviewState Commission of InvestigationGrand Jury AuthorityPublic Official MisconductCivil Rights Law
References
18
Case No. 01-14-00135-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Peter Hardsteen and Paulina Mayberg Hardsteen and Intervenor Texas Farm Bureau v. Dean's Campin Co.

This appeal arose from a summary judgment in favor of Dean's Campin' Co. on an indemnity claim against Peter and Paulina Hardsteen and their insurer, Texas Farm Bureau. The underlying dispute involved a recreational vehicle purchased by Peter Hardsteen from Dean that caught fire, leading to initial litigation against the RV manufacturer, Rexhall, and Dean. The Hardsteens settled with Rexhall, but continued claims against Dean for negligent repairs and Deceptive Trade Practices Act violations, in which Dean was found not liable. Dean subsequently sought indemnity from the Hardsteens, relying on a contractual indemnity provision in the Hardsteens-Rexhall settlement agreement. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the indemnity provision did not obligate the Hardsteens to indemnify Rexhall for Dean's claim, as Dean was not found liable to the Hardsteens. The case was remanded for judgment to be entered in favor of the Hardsteens and Texas Farm Bureau.

Summary JudgmentIndemnity ClaimContractual IndemnityStatutory IndemnityProduct LiabilityDeceptive Trade Practices ActContract InterpretationAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeSettlement Agreement
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 986 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