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. 04-15-00469-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2015

Cash Biz, LP, Redwood Financial, LLC, Cash Zone, LLC Dba Cash Biz v. Hiawatha Henry, Addie Harris, Montray Norris, and Roosevelt Coleman Jr.

This case involves an interlocutory appeal by Cash Biz, LP and its affiliates against Hiawatha Henry and other appellees. Cash Biz is challenging a trial court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration and enforce a class action waiver. The appellees had sued Cash Biz for malicious prosecution, fraud, and statutory violations after Cash Biz filed criminal charges against them related to defaulted loan contracts. The trial court ruled that Cash Biz's actions in using the criminal justice system to collect a civil debt constituted a waiver of its right to arbitrate and that the arbitration clauses were inapplicable. Cash Biz argues that the appellees' claims fall within the broad scope of their arbitration agreements and that merely filing criminal complaints does not legally constitute a 'substantial invocation of the judicial process' to waive arbitration.

ArbitrationClass Action WaiverMalicious ProsecutionFraudDebt CollectionLoan ContractsTexas Arbitration ActFederal Arbitration ActWaiver of ArbitrationInterlocutory Appeal
References
0
Case No. 03-04-00560-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2005

Gwen Cash v. Keith Lovell Cash

This case involves an appeal by Gwen Cash against a final divorce decree. She argued that the written order incorrectly varied from a prior oral ruling concerning the division of her former husband's disability benefits, community tax obligations, and any undisclosed property. Mrs. Cash requested that the written order be reformed to align with the more favorable oral pronouncement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court had plenary power to modify its judgment and did not abuse its discretion in the property division, especially since the written decree was a result of subsequent negotiations between the parties.

Divorce DecreeProperty DivisionOral RulingWritten OrderPlenary PowerAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewCommunity PropertyDisability BenefitsTax Obligations
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vam Check Cashing Corp. v. Federal Insurance

Vam Check Cashing Corporation (VAM) sued Federal Insurance Company after experiencing a $120,000 loss due to an elaborate fraud scheme. Imposters tricked a cashier at VAM's Pine Check Cashing location into handing over the money. Federal denied VAM's claim, asserting the incident did not meet the policy's definition of 'Robbery,' specifically concerning the terms 'overt felonious act' and 'cognizance.' The court examined the insurance policy's ambiguous language, particularly the meanings of 'overt' and 'cognizance.' It ruled that the cashier did not need to recognize the act as criminal for coverage, only that the physical act of transferring money occurred in her presence and control. The court found Federal's interpretation would defeat the policy's purpose of protecting check cashing businesses from fraud. Consequently, VAM's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Federal's motion was denied.

Insurance Policy InterpretationRobbery DefinitionSummary JudgmentContract AmbiguityFraud SchemeCheck Cashing BusinessOn Premises ClauseOvert Felonious ActCognizance RequirementNew York Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mel Handling Equipment Co., Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Facility sued Mel Handling Equipment Company, Inc. for additional premiums under a workers' compensation policy, resulting from a retrospective application of an experience modifier and tabular surcharge. The Company argued that a binder stated 'No Modifier and No Surcharge Will Apply.' The trial court granted summary judgment for the Facility. On appeal, the court found the statement in the binder ambiguous and noted the absence of an approved endorsement authorizing such modifications. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case, concluding that the Facility was not authorized to impose the additional premium without proper documentation.

Workers' Compensation InsurancePremium DisputesInsurance Policy InterpretationSummary Judgment ReversalRetrospective Rating PlanExperience ModificationTabular SurchargeInsurance BinderPolicy EndorsementsAssigned Risk Pool
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00187 [179 AD3d 1228]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Reardon v. Global Cash Card, Inc.

The case, Matter of Reardon v Global Cash Card, Inc., involves an appeal concerning the validity of 12 NYCRR part 192, regulations governing wage payment methods, including payroll debit cards, adopted by the Commissioner of Labor. Global Cash Card, Inc., a payroll debit card service provider, challenged these regulations, leading to their revocation by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA). The Commissioner then successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to annul the IBA's determination. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the Commissioner acted within her delegated legislative authority in promulgating the regulations, despite modifying the order to strike certain extraneous proof.

Labor LawWage PaymentPayroll Debit CardsAdministrative RegulationsRule-making AuthorityIndustrial Board of Appeals (IBA)CPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationCommissioner of Labor
References
15
Case No. W2016-02288-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2017

Kevin Cash v. Turner Holdings, LLC a/k/a Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning the application of the doctrine of res judicata. Kevin Cash filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Turner Holdings LLC a/k/a Prairie Farms Dairy Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The initial lawsuit was dismissed 'in its entirety' by the trial court. Cash subsequently filed a second lawsuit asserting the same causes of action, but the trial court granted summary judgment to Turner Holdings, finding the claims barred by res judicata due to the prior dismissal being a final adjudication on the merits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the November 20, 2014, dismissal order was a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes.

Res JudicataClaim PreclusionSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissRetaliatory DischargeFraudIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewFinal Judgment
References
30
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02617
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v. Title

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed a dispute over cash proceeds from the demutualization of Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC). Petitioner, Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP, purchased the professional liability insurance policy and paid all associated premiums. Respondent, Rachel S. Title, M.D., was the named insured but did not contribute to the policy costs. The Court declared that the petitioner is entitled to the cash proceeds, including accrued interest, and directed the Clerk of Supreme Court, New York County, to enter judgment accordingly. The decision affirmed that awarding the proceeds to the respondent would constitute unjust enrichment, as she did not pay for the policy or bargain for the demutualization benefits.

Demutualization proceedsProfessional liability insuranceUnjust enrichmentInsurance policyPremium paymentsAppellate DivisionCivil ProcedureContract Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cash v. Conn Appliances, Inc.

Plaintiffs (Debra Cash et al.) sued Conn Appliances, Inc., and its subsidiaries, alleging improper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Defendants moved for summary judgment on overtime calculation, limitations, and damages, while plaintiffs sought to proceed as a FLSA collective action. The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion regarding the calculation of overtime compensation, finding that Conn Appliances' use of the fluctuating workweek method was permissible. Consequently, the defendants' motion on limitations and damages was deemed moot. The plaintiffs' motion for a FLSA collective action was denied to the extent it relied on arguments opposing summary judgment, with a decision deferred on the inclusion of bonuses and incentives in regular rate computations.

FLSAOvertime CompensationSummary JudgmentCollective ActionFluctuating Workweek MethodMinimum Wage ViolationsWage and Hour DivisionSalary Basis TestGood Faith DefenseLiquidated Damages
References
90
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Delta Materials Handling, Inc.

Felton Allen and Barbara Allen sued Delta Materials Handling, Inc. for injuries Mr. Allen sustained from a defective forklift leased by Delta to his employer, The Regina Company. The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, which Delta appealed. The core issue on appeal was whether a defendant in a negligence action could assert comparative negligence of the plaintiff's employer or co-employee as an affirmative defense, even if the employer was immune under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act. Citing Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co. and McIntyre v. Balentine, the court determined that fault could only be attributed to parties against whom the plaintiff has a cause of action, thus excluding the employer in this context. The court also affirmed the trial court's denial of a mistrial motion regarding an improper statement made by plaintiff's counsel during closing arguments, finding no prejudice since the statement was interrupted.

Comparative NegligenceWorkers' Compensation ActForklift InjuryEmployer LiabilityNonparty FaultTort ActionAffirmative DefenseTrial Court JudgmentAppealMistrial
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cal-Tex Lumber Co., Inc. v. Owens Handle Co., Inc.

Owens Handle Company, Inc. (Owens Co.) sued Cal-Tex Lumber Company, Inc. (Cal-Tex) for breach of contract and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). A jury awarded Owens Co. damages for breach of contract, which Cal-Tex appealed. The appellate court affirmed that Owens Co.'s duty to provide insurance was not a condition precedent to Cal-Tex's site preparation duties and dismissed Cal-Tex's waiver argument regarding prior breaches. However, the court found the evidence legally insufficient to support the full lump-sum damages awarded for lost profits, specifically beyond the first year of the contract. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for a new trial to recalculate damages.

Breach of ContractDeceptive Trade Practices ActDTPALost ProfitsCondition PrecedentWaiverContractual ObligationsDamagesLegal SufficiencyFactual Sufficiency
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 2,887 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