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. 03-01-00159-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2002

Carolyn Barnes, Individually and as Next Friend of William Zimmer Barnes and Charles Austin Lee Bednorz v. Calvin R. Sulak Lt. Wayne Lock Sgt. Ralph Fisher R.C. Nichols And Williamson County Sheriff's Department

Carolyn Barnes appealed a summary judgment related to her claims against the Williamson County Sheriff's Department and its employees following her arrest in 1997. She alleged violations of common-law, statutory, and constitutional provisions during her arrest and jailing. The court affirmed the take-nothing judgment against Barnes's claims, primarily due to her failure to timely file a summary-judgment response and present evidence. However, the court reversed the award of attorney's fees as sanctions against Barnes, concluding that there was no evidence her lawsuit was groundless, brought in bad faith, or to harass.

Summary JudgmentAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTimelinessDiscovery DisputesSanctionsRule 13Qualified ImmunityNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentProcedural Issues
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnes v. Ross

Arrello Barnes, a pro se mentally ill inmate, sued DOCCS Commissioner Fischer and other New York State Office of Mental Health employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs (Eighth Amendment) and racial discrimination in medical care (Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection). Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court denied Barnes' motions for sanctions and default judgment, and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim against all defendants and all claims against Commissioner Fischer due to a lack of personal involvement. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Barnes' equal protection claim for racial discrimination, finding that he plausibly alleged disparate treatment based on race by the remaining defendants. The defendants' claim of qualified immunity was also denied at this stage.

Inmate RightsEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEqual Protection ClauseDeliberate IndifferenceRacial DiscriminationMental Health CarePrison ConditionsPro Se LitigationRule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnes v. National Mortgage Co.

Raymond Barnes appealed a trial court decision denying him workmen's compensation benefits for a back injury, arguing he was an employee of National Mortgage Company. The lower court determined Barnes was an independent contractor. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed this ruling, citing factors such as Barnes supplying his own tools, flexible working hours, and the ability to work for other companies, which indicated an independent contractor status despite a 5% deduction for workmen's compensation. The court emphasized that the right to control the method of performance, rather than just supervision, is key. Barnes' claim that National Mortgage Company was estopped from denying coverage due to the deduction and a representative's statement was also rejected, as the trial judge's findings on the facts were supported by evidence.

Independent ContractorEmployee StatusWorkmen's CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipRight to ControlMethod of PaymentFurnishing ToolsRight of TerminationEstoppelTennessee Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ4012081 (SBA 0086539)
Regular
Aug 19, 2014

KAREN SEGROVES vs. BURGER BARN\/PAULA'S PANCAKE HOUSE, THE HARTFORD

In Segroves v. Burger Barn/Paula's Pancake House, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a May 29, 2014 award. The WCAB determined that further study of the factual and legal issues was necessary to ensure a just and reasoned decision. Consequently, all future filings related to this case must be submitted in writing directly to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not to any district office or through the electronic system.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemOxnard District OfficeSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. 13-14-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2014

Mary Melinda Barnes v. Navarro Hospital, LP, Navarro Regional, LLC, D/B/A NAVREG, LLC

Mary Melinda Barnes, an employee, sued Navarro Hospital for injuries sustained at work, alleging negligence. Navarro moved to dismiss, arguing the claim constituted a health care liability claim (HCLC) under the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA), which required an expert medical report that Barnes failed to provide. Barnes subsequently attempted to amend her petition to remove HCLC-related allegations. The trial court granted Navarro's motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court concluded that the original petition established the claim as an HCLC, and Barnes's amended pleadings were an attempt to bypass TMLA requirements.

Health Care Liability ClaimMedical Expert Report RequirementMotion to DismissAppellate AffirmationTexas Medical Liability ActNon-subscriber EmployerNegligence ClaimPremises LiabilitySuperseded PleadingsStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Case No. 03-15-00642-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2015

Travis County Sheriff's Office Senior Certified Peace Officer Dennis Tumlinson v. Carolyn Barnes

Carolyn Barnes sued Officer Dennis Tumlinson, a Travis County Sheriff’s Office Senior Certified Peace Officer, and other Travis County employees, alleging civil and constitutional rights violations, conspiracy, assault, and perjury. Barnes sought monetary damages, injunctive relief, and a declaratory judgment. The Travis County Defendants, including Tumlinson, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court granted dismissal for most defendants but denied it for Officer Tumlinson. This document is Officer Tumlinson’s appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. The appellant asserts that the court lacks jurisdiction and that he is entitled to immunity based on affirmative defenses of official immunity, statute of limitations, and res judicata. The brief details the history of Barnes's arrests and prior lawsuits against various entities and individuals in Travis and Williamson Counties, framing the current case as a malicious prosecution and collateral attack on criminal judgments.

Official ImmunityQualified ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsRes JudicataCivil Rights ViolationsConstitutional RightsFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionAggravated Perjury
References
132
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05678 [187 AD3d 501]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2020

Jiraud v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, dismissing Celso Jiraud's complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc. Jiraud had alleged negligent supervision, assault, and battery by a maintenance worker. The court found Barnes & Noble not liable for negligent supervision due to lack of prior knowledge of the employee's violent propensities. Furthermore, it ruled out liability for assault and battery under respondeat superior, as the employee's actions were not within the scope of employment or in furtherance of the employer's interests. Consequently, the entire complaint was dismissed.

Negligent supervisionAssault and batteryRespondeat superiorSummary judgmentEmployee misconductEmployer liabilityViolent propensitiesScope of employmentAppellate reviewComplaint dismissal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnes v. Park Congregational Church

Plaintiff Clark A. Barnes and his wife initiated an action against defendants, including Park Church, for personal injuries sustained during roof replacement work. They alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6). The Supreme Court partially granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but allowing other claims to proceed. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The injury occurred when plaintiff hit his head on a low-hanging beam while ascending an internal stairway. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable as the incident involved a permanent passageway hazard, not a failure to provide elevated safety devices.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryPremises LiabilityRoof Work AccidentStatutory InterpretationConstruction SafetyNegligenceHazardous Conditions
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. Burger King Corp.

The defendant, Burger King Corp., applied for an amendment to the findings of fact from a December 10, 1980 Memorandum Decision and Order. The court granted the Rule 52(b) motion to supplement previous findings, particularly regarding defendant's record-keeping and overtime-pay obligations for Assistant Managers in the New York area. The judgment's relief is extended beyond the initial two districts or five restaurants due to evidence of systemic issues emanating from the regional level. The court also addressed the Secretary's claim regarding Assistant Managers earning above the short-form test exemption. Prejudgment interest was awarded at the adjusted prime rate, rejecting the defendant's good faith argument due to willful violations. The defendant's application for a stay of judgment pending appeal was granted, except for record-keeping obligations, conditional on filing bonds and prosecuting the appeal.

Overtime PayFair Labor Standards ActRule 52(b) MotionPrejudgment InterestWillful ViolationsRecord-KeepingEquitable PowersFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureAssistant ManagersStay of Judgment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2000

Intimate Bookshop, Inc. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

The Intimate Bookshop Inc. filed an antitrust action against several retailer defendants, including Barnes & Noble and Borders, alleging violations of the Robinson-Patman Act. Intimate claimed the retailer defendants received discriminatory pricing, secret discounts, rebates, and brokerage fees from publishers, which were not offered to independent booksellers, leading to substantial loss of sales and harm to competition. The court addressed the retailer defendants' motion to dismiss and for a more definite statement. The court denied dismissal of Section 2(f) claims related to promotional payments and advertising allowances, but granted dismissal of Section 2(c) claims concerning brokerage fees (without prejudice) and advertising/promotional payments (with prejudice). The motion for a more definite statement was granted regarding the identity of discriminating sellers but denied for competitive injury allegations.

AntitrustRobinson-Patman ActPrice DiscriminationRetail BooksellersIndependent BookstoresSection 2(f) claimsSection 2(c) claimsPromotional PaymentsAdvertising AllowancesBrokerage Fees
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 103 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