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

Walker v. Columbia University

The plaintiffs in this action filed their complaint on June 15, 1973, but failed to move for a class action determination within the required sixty days, missing the deadline by over four weeks. The court found that this delay hampered public business and that no valid excuse was offered for the untimeliness. Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' attorneys' failure to adhere to clear rules indicates they would not adequately protect the class interests. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the action as a class action was granted, and the plaintiffs' cross-motion for a class action determination was denied.

Untimely MotionClass Action DismissalProcedural RulesRule 23(c)(1)Rule 23(a)(4)Attorney ConductJudicial DiscretionDelayFailure to ProsecuteRule 11A(c)

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Wesley v. John Mullins & Sons, Inc.

Defendant John Mullins & Sons, Inc. moved to dismiss the plaintiff's pendent state law claim or, alternatively, to decertify the class action. The plaintiff had initially filed a class suit in February 1974, alleging violations of the Truth-in-Lending Act and the New York Retail Installment Sales Act. Although the action was tentatively certified as a class action, subsequent amendments to both federal and New York laws imposed significant limitations on recoveries in class actions involving statutory penalties. The court found that allowing the state law class claim to proceed would result in recoveries far exceeding federal limits and would contravene public policy against overwhelming penalty judgments. Therefore, the court dismissed the class action aspect of the plaintiff's state claim for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and decertified the class, while allowing the plaintiff to pursue an individual claim.

Pendent JurisdictionClass ActionTruth-in-Lending ActNew York Retail Installment Sales ActDismissal of ClaimDecertification of ClassStatutory PenaltiesFederal Question JurisdictionJudicial DiscretionFederal-State Conflict

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Life Insurance Co. of Southwest v. Brister

This is an interlocutory appeal challenging a trial court's order certifying a class action. The class, represented by M.C. Brister, Jr., comprises employees of Texas Steel Company who received workers' compensation benefits but were allegedly denied disability benefits under an Employee Benefit Plan issued by Life Insurance Company of the Southwest. The claims involved breach of contract and misrepresentation. Appellants contended that the class did not meet the requirements for certification under TEX.R.CIV.P. 42(b) and that the trial court improperly excluded evidence regarding a prior federal class action settlement. The appellate court affirmed the class certification, finding that common issues, primarily the interpretation of the Employee Benefit Plan and alleged statutory violations, predominated over individual issues, making a class action superior. While acknowledging the error in excluding evidence of the federal lawsuit, the court determined it was not a reversible error as it did not contribute to an improper judgment.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealWorkers' CompensationDisability BenefitsBreach of ContractMisrepresentationEmployee Benefit PlanTexas Insurance CodeDeceptive Trade PracticesRule 42

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Heagney v. European American Bank

Plaintiffs in this action allege that the defendant, European American Bank, discriminated against them based on age, violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The plaintiffs sought the court's authorization to proceed as an "opt-in" class action and to send notice to potential class members. The Court granted the motion, concluding that the case may proceed as an opt-in class suit, broadly defining the class to include employees whose employment was terminated through various mechanisms, not just early retirement, between June 1, 1984, and December 31, 1985. Furthermore, the Court determined that plaintiffs' counsel could provide written notice to other potential class members without requiring formal court authorization, citing recent Supreme Court rulings on attorney advertising and finding no legal precedent to prohibit such notice. The Court also found that the administrative filing requirements under the ADEA were satisfied for the class.

Age DiscriminationADEAClass ActionOpt-in ClassClass CertificationAttorney AdvertisingSolicitation of ClaimsEEOC Administrative ChargeFair Labor Standards ActEarly Retirement Incentive Program

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Gudz v. Jemrock Realty Co., LLC

The dissenting opinion, penned by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, argues against the permissibility of a class action concerning rent overcharges under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The core contention is that the treble damages stipulated in RSL § 26-516 (a) constitute a mandatory "penalty" as defined by CPLR 901 (b), which explicitly forbids class actions for statutory penalties unless specific authorization exists. The dissent asserts that any waiver of these treble damages by a class representative is nullified by Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.13, as such a waiver would undermine the legislative intent to deter excessive rents and contravene public policy. Furthermore, the opinion posits that such a waiver compromises the adequacy of the class representative, potentially disadvantaging class members who might possess significant claims for treble damages.

Class ActionPenaltyTreble DamagesRent Stabilization LawCPLR 901 (b)Waiver of RightsAdequacy of Class RepresentativePublic PolicyStatutory InterpretationRent Overcharge

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Murillo v. Texas a & M University System

Plaintiff Berene Murillo filed a class action lawsuit against the Texas A & M University System and Dr. Edward A. Hiler, alleging widespread misclassification of agricultural workers as independent contractors. This misclassification led to various violations including the Fair Labor Standards Act, Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Federal Insurance Contribution Act, Civil Rights Act, and Texas Revised Civil Statutes. Specifically, the suit claimed failures to pay minimum wage, social security excise taxes, and unemployment benefits. Following extensive negotiations, the parties reached a settlement, which the Court reviewed and approved as fair and adequate. The resulting Agreed Class Action Consent Decree mandates defendants to pay damages to class members, correct social security accounts, and implement new employment practices to ensure compliance with federal labor laws, thereby preventing future misclassification of workers.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards ActAgricultural WorkersIndependent ContractorsWage and HourSocial Security TaxesUnemployment BenefitsConsent DecreeSettlement AgreementEmployee Misclassification

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

E & v. SLACK, INC. v. Shell Oil Co.

Appellants, former Shell service station operators, appealed a trial court's denial of class action certification against Shell Oil Company. They alleged Shell manipulated gasoline prices to collect secret rent through a "Variable Rent Program" (VRP), claiming breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, statutory fraud, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). The appellate court affirmed the denial of class certification, finding that the appellants failed to satisfy the requirements for adequate representation and commonality under Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the court noted conflicts of interest between former and present dealers and that individual factual questions regarding liability, damages, and defenses predominated over common issues, making a class action an inferior method of adjudication.

Class actionClass certification denialAbuse of discretionTexas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 42Commonality requirementAdequacy of representationPredominance of individual issuesSuperiority of class actionVariable Rent Program (VRP)Breach of contract

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

May 12, 1983

Yollin v. Holland America Cruises, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff who sued Holland America Cruises, Inc. and Holland America Cruises, N. V. on behalf of himself and other passengers for alleged fraud, breach of contract, negligence, and false advertising related to an 11-day cruise. The claims stemmed from purported lack of shopping opportunities at certain ports and an unannounced itinerary change from Bermuda to St. Maarten. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the plaintiff's motion for class action certification, a decision affirmed by the appellate court on different grounds, citing a lack of merit in the claims and the impracticality of class action due to potential mini-trials. The court also modified the lower court's order by dismissing the seventh affirmative defense as moot, while otherwise affirming the original decision. The itinerary change was found to be a reasonable exercise of discretion by the defendant due to a strike in Bermuda.

Class actionCruise contractItinerary changeConsumer fraudBreach of contractNegligenceFalse advertisingNumerosity requirementContractual limitationMaritime law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Becton Dickinson and Co. v. Usrey

This interlocutory appeal concerns the propriety of certifying a class action of Texas healthcare workers who sustained needlesticks from defectively designed syringes and needle-bearing medical devices manufactured by Becton Dickinson and Company and Sherwood Medical Company. The class sought reimbursement for post-needlestick testing costs, excluding claims for emotional distress or infection. The trial court certified the class, but the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that common issues, particularly causation and comparative responsibility, do not predominate over individual issues as required by Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, especially under the more conservative approach mandated by Southwestern Refining Co. v. Bernal. The court found that needlestick injuries often involve unique circumstances, including the fault of the healthcare worker, employers, and third parties, which necessitate individual analysis. Furthermore, the trial court's proposed plan for handling individual comparative fault issues was deemed unfair and unduly restrictive.

Product LiabilityClass ActionNeedlestick InjuryHealthcare WorkersDefective DesignCausationComparative FaultRule 42Texas LawInterlocutory Appeal

References

Showing 1-10 of 10,561 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

Walker v. Columbia University

Untimely MotionClass Action DismissalProcedural RulesRule 23(c)(1)Rule 23(a)(4)Attorney ConductJudicial DiscretionDelayFailure to ProsecuteRule 11A(c)

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Wesley v. John Mullins & Sons, Inc.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Life Insurance Co. of Southwest v. Brister

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealWorkers' CompensationDisability BenefitsBreach of ContractMisrepresentationEmployee Benefit PlanTexas Insurance CodeDeceptive Trade PracticesRule 42

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Heagney v. European American Bank

Age DiscriminationADEAClass ActionOpt-in ClassClass CertificationAttorney AdvertisingSolicitation of ClaimsEEOC Administrative ChargeFair Labor Standards ActEarly Retirement Incentive Program

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Gudz v. Jemrock Realty Co., LLC

Class ActionPenaltyTreble DamagesRent Stabilization LawCPLR 901 (b)Waiver of RightsAdequacy of Class RepresentativePublic PolicyStatutory InterpretationRent Overcharge

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Murillo v. Texas a & M University System

Class ActionFair Labor Standards ActAgricultural WorkersIndependent ContractorsWage and HourSocial Security TaxesUnemployment BenefitsConsent DecreeSettlement AgreementEmployee Misclassification

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

E & v. SLACK, INC. v. Shell Oil Co.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

May 12, 1983

Yollin v. Holland America Cruises, Inc.

Class actionCruise contractItinerary changeConsumer fraudBreach of contractNegligenceFalse advertisingNumerosity requirementContractual limitationMaritime law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Becton Dickinson and Co. v. Usrey

Product LiabilityClass ActionNeedlestick InjuryHealthcare WorkersDefective DesignCausationComparative FaultRule 42Texas LawInterlocutory Appeal

References

Showing 1-10 of 10,561 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.