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

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. Littleton

Jackie and Cheryl Woods sued B. L. Littleton and Joe S. Thomson, doing business as Superior Construction Company, for defective sewer systems and faulty repairs, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found the Act applicable and actions deceptive but declined to treble damages. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded, questioning the Act's applicability. This court affirmed the remand, ruling that the Act applies to deceptive practices occurring after its effective date (May 21, 1973), even if the initial sale was earlier, and that treble damages are mandatory once liability is established. The case was remanded for a retrial to determine actual damages solely attributable to post-effective date deceptive practices, which must then be trebled.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer ProtectionMandatory Treble DamagesStatutory InterpretationRemand for RetrialSewer System DefectsFaulty Repair ServiceReal Estate TransactionPost-Effective Date ApplicabilityMental Anguish Damages
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Needle Trades Workers' Industrial Union

The indictment charges the defendants, including the Needle Trades Workers’ Industrial Union, with violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by conspiring to restrain interstate trade in raw skins. The conspiracy involved preventing non-union dressers from processing skins and dealers from shipping to them, employing violent tactics such as threats, assaults, destruction of property, and the use of explosives. The court addressed whether these actions constituted a restraint of interstate commerce, differentiating between local strikes with indirect effects and direct interference with interstate trade. It concluded that the alleged prevention of New York dealers from shipping skins to New Jersey dressers constituted a direct, substantial, and intentional interference with interstate commerce. The court also affirmed that shipping goods for processing across state lines is considered interstate commerce and clarified that the National Industrial Recovery Act did not repeal the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or legalize such a conspiracy. Consequently, the demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the indictment was overruled.

Sherman Anti-Trust ActInterstate CommerceLabor UnionConspiracyDemurrerIndictmentTrade RestraintViolenceSecondary BoycottLabor Disputes
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tripodi v. Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n

Plaintiff Anthony Tripodi initiated a lawsuit against Local Union No. 38 and its counsel, Dubin, for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case, initially filed in Connecticut, was transferred to the Southern District of New York. The central jurisdictional challenge arose from the Union's status as an unincorporated association with members in both Connecticut and New York, thereby destroying complete diversity of citizenship. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules, determined that New York law governed the substantive claims, which rendered the Union an indispensable party. Consequently, due to the lack of complete diversity and the indispensability of the Union, the court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, advising the plaintiff to seek redress in state courts where both defendants could be pursued in a single action.

Malicious ProsecutionIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressConnecticut Unfair Trade Practices ActSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionIndispensable PartyChoice of LawNew York LawConnecticut LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2003

In re the Claim of Burdick

The claimant, a model builder for Valeo Electrical Systems, Inc. in Rochester, Monroe County, voluntarily participated in a retirement incentive program and separated from employment on November 1, 2002. Valeo had filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy and was approved to move its compressor production operations to Mexico, leading to a reduction in its labor force. Following his separation, the claimant applied for a trade readjustment allowance under the federal Trade Act of 1974. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his application, ruling that his separation was for a reason other than lack of work. The appeal ensued, and the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it rational based on testimony that the claimant had sufficient seniority and would not have been among those involuntarily eliminated had he not elected the incentive program.

Trade Readjustment AllowanceUnemployment BenefitsVoluntary SeparationSeniorityBankruptcyWorkforce ReductionAppellate ReviewTrade Act of 1974Employment LawNew York State
References
5
Case No. 11-06-00187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2008

Law Offices of Miller & Bicklein v. Deep East Texas Self-Insurance Fund and Risk Management Services

The Law Offices of Miller & Bicklein sued Deep East Texas Self-Insurance Fund and Risk Management Services over attorney's fees under Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 417.003, along with claims for unfair insurance practices and Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act violations. The trial court awarded Miller & Bicklein a partial amount for attorney's fees under Section 417.003 but granted summary judgment against them on the other claims. Miller & Bicklein appealed, arguing error in the summary judgment and refusal to award additional attorney's fees. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders, finding no error in the summary judgment regarding DTPA and insurance practices claims, and no abuse of discretion in denying additional attorney's fees under the Declaratory Judgments Act.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentDTPAUnfair Insurance PracticesDeclaratory Judgments ActAppellate ReviewSubrogation InterestLegal EthicsTexas Jurisprudence
References
24
Case No. 03-12-00734-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2013

Donna Hopper, Individually and as Surviving Spouse and on Behalf of the Estate of Robert Hopper, and as Guardian of Dylon Hopper and Fallon Hopper Keegan Hopper Justin Hopper And Trevor Hopper v. Argonaut Insurance Company and Kimberly Barrett, Adjuster

Appellants, collectively known as the Hoppers, including Donna Hopper and the children of Robert Hopper, appealed a take-nothing summary judgment granted to appellees Argonaut Insurance Company and Kimberly Barrett. The Hoppers had sued Argonaut and Barrett for allegedly mishandling and delaying workers' compensation death benefits claims following Robert Hopper's death from a fentanyl overdose. Their claims encompassed common-law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unconscionability, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, alongside statutory claims under the Texas Insurance Code and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing *Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ruttiger*, which established the Texas Workers' Compensation Act as the exclusive remedy for unfair settlement practices and abolished the common-law duty of good faith and fair dealing in this context. The court found no evidence that Argonaut or Barrett misrepresented the terms of an insurance policy, but rather that the dispute concerned factual coverage, which is addressed by the Act's administrative dispute resolution process.

Workers' CompensationInsurance ClaimsBad FaithSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Insurance CodeDeceptive Trade Practices ActFentanyl OverdoseWork-Related InjuryExclusive Remedy
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 1989

Marroquin v. American Trading Transportation Co.

Plaintiff Edmundo S. Marroquin was injured on November 8, 1985, while cleaning a cargo tank aboard the S.S. Washington Trader on the high seas. Marroquin was employed by third-party defendant Stevens Technical Services and the vessel was owned by defendant and third-party plaintiff American Trading Transportation Company. Marroquin initially sued American Trading for negligence and later added a cause of action for unseaworthiness. American Trading then instituted a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Stevens. Stevens moved for summary judgment, arguing that Marroquin's unseaworthiness claim was barred by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), which would also dismiss American Trading's third-party action. The court denied Stevens' motion, finding that Marroquin was not covered by the LHWCA because he was the equivalent of a 'member of a crew' working on the high seas, not a land-based worker in port. Additionally, the LHWCA's geographical scope does not extend to injuries on the high seas during a long international voyage. Therefore, Marroquin could maintain his unseaworthiness claim, and American Trading could seek contribution or indemnification from Stevens.

Maritime LawUnseaworthiness ClaimLHWCA InapplicabilityHigh Seas InjurySeaman StatusThird-Party ActionSummary Judgment MotionVessel Cleaning CrewContribution and Indemnification
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sprint Communications Co. v. Jasco Trading, Inc.

The case involves Plaintiffs Sprint Communications Company L.P., Sprint Nextel Corporation, Boost Worldwide, Inc., and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. (collectively 'Sprint') against Defendants Jasco Trading, Inc., Alan Savdie, YRB Trading Corp., and Yehudah Bodek. Plaintiffs initiated the action alleging various claims including breach of contract, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, stemming from an alleged 'Bulk Handset Trafficking Scheme.' The court considered two primary motions: Plaintiffs' motion to enforce a settlement agreement with the YRB Defendants and the YRB Defendants' motion to stay the case pending arbitration. Applying the Winston factors, the Court determined that no binding settlement agreement was reached, citing an implied reservation of the right not to be bound in the absence of a signed writing, disagreement on a material term, and the nature of such agreements typically requiring formalization. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement. The YRB Defendants' motion to stay for arbitration was also denied, but without prejudice, due to their denial of knowledge regarding the arbitration agreement and insufficient briefing on the merits.

Contract LawSettlement EnforceabilityOral AgreementsWinston FactorsArbitration ClauseMotion to EnforceMotion to StayBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionTrademark Infringement
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sun Trading Distributing Co. v. Evidence Music, Inc.

Plaintiff Sun Trading Distributing Co., doing business as Muse Records and Landmark Records, filed a lawsuit against Evidence Music, Inc. and Kenwood Electronics Corp. alleging unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and New York State common law. The core of the complaint revolved around the defendants' alleged unauthorized exploitation of sound recordings by jazz artists John Hicks, Edward “Sonny” Stitt, and Antoine Roney. Sun Trading claimed false designation of origin (reverse passing off) for the Stitt recording and false advertising for the Roney recording, leading to consumer confusion. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Lanham Act claims, finding insufficient evidence of actual or likelihood of consumer confusion. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the complaint.

Lanham ActUnfair CompetitionTrademark InfringementCopyrightSound RecordingsJazz MusicConsumer ConfusionSummary JudgmentSupplemental JurisdictionBreach of Contract
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 8,148 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