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. 97 Civ. 4550
Regular Panel Decision

Laborers Local 17 Health & Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.

Plaintiffs, employee benefit trust funds, filed parallel class-action lawsuits alleging fraud and tortious conduct by several domestic cigarette manufacturers and related defendants, including B.A.T. Industries p.l.c. (BAT Industries) and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation. The core allegation is that defendants concealed crucial information about smoking dangers, causing plaintiffs to incur millions in medical benefits for beneficiaries. BAT Industries moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court examined grounds for jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute (CPLR § 302(a)), RICO statutes, a conspiracy theory, and an alter-ego theory. It found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction over BAT Industries, noting that many alleged conspiratorial activities predated BAT Industries' formation in 1976 and that no sufficient links or control were demonstrated. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was granted, but with leave for plaintiffs to amend their complaint by September 30, 1998, to plead facts that could support jurisdiction under a conspiracy theory.

Personal JurisdictionMotion to DismissLong-Arm StatuteConspiracy TheoryAlter-Ego TheoryRICOTobacco LitigationClass ActionFraudEmployee Benefit Funds
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Post

The case involves defendants Constance G. Post and Wayne Charles, convicted of mail fraud, honest services fraud, and conspiracy, who challenged their convictions post-trial following the Supreme Court's Skilling decision. Post, a Mount Vernon city official, engaged in undisclosed self-dealing to benefit Charles through various schemes involving city contracts and HUD funds. The court found that erroneous jury instructions on honest services fraud, which did not limit it to bribes or kickbacks, constituted a Skilling error. Given the intertwined presentation of valid pecuniary fraud and invalid honest services fraud theories, the court could not guarantee the jury's verdict was solely based on a permissible theory. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the mail fraud and conspiracy counts is granted, while Charles's false statements conviction remains due to a lack of prejudicial spillover.

Mail fraudHonest services fraudConspiracyPublic corruptionUndisclosed self-dealingSkilling v. United StatesJury instructionsHarmless error reviewFederal criminal lawPost-conviction motion
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Affiliated Capital Corp. v. City of Houston

This antitrust case involves Affiliated Capital's claim against Gulf Coast, the City of Houston, and Mayor Jim McConn for an alleged conspiracy to limit competition for cable television franchises in Houston. The jury found that a conspiracy existed but that the boundary agreements, central to the plaintiff's primary theory, were not part of an illegal conspiracy. The court ultimately granted the defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, determining that there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the found conspiracy and the plaintiff's failure to secure a franchise, outside of the boundary agreements. The court also denied the plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief due to a lack of standing, and analyzed the inapplicability of Noerr-Pennington immunity and state action exemption to the defendants' conduct, had the plaintiff prevailed on the causation issue.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCable Television FranchisesMunicipal LawConspiracyNoerr-Pennington DoctrineState Action ExemptionJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictCausationInjunctive Relief
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Skolny v. Hillman

Plaintiffs, manufacturers of men's and boys' clothing, filed an action against Sidney Hillman, Jacob S. Potofsky, and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, alleging an unlawful conspiracy. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from instigating strikes, picketing, and coercing employees to unionize, claiming these actions violated their 'open shop' employment contracts. Defendants denied the charges, arguing their actions were lawful labor practices and challenged the complaint's legal sufficiency. The court denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction pendente lite, affirming that such alleged acts constituted a common law conspiracy and warranted injunctive relief.

Labor disputeInjunctionConspiracyPicketingUnionizationEmployment contractsUnincorporated associationsPendente liteCommon law conspiracyOpen shop
References
13
Case No. E2012-01339-CCA-R3-PD
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2014

Jonathan Wesley Stephenson v. State of Tennessee

Jonathan Wesley Stephenson was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and conspiracy, with a death penalty for murder and a sixty-year sentence for conspiracy. He appealed the denial of post-conviction relief, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel concerning a plea agreement, aggravating circumstances, admission of statements to police, inconsistent prosecutorial theories, insufficient mitigation evidence, victim impact evidence, and jury selection. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the post-conviction court's judgment, finding no error in its denial of relief. The decision details the complex procedural history of the case, including previous appeals and habeas corpus petitions.

Capital PunishmentDeath SentencePost-ConvictionIneffective Assistance of CounselFirst Degree MurderConspiracyPlea BargainHabeas CorpusAggravating CircumstanceMitigating Evidence
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1994

Triplex Communications, Inc. v. Riley

Officers James Riley and Mary Gray, injured by an intoxicated driver, sued Triplex Communications, Inc., a radio station promoting a nightclub where the driver was overserved. They alleged joint enterprise, civil conspiracy, and negligent promotion. The trial court did not find the radio station liable, but the court of appeals reversed, allowing these claims. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the radio station could not be held liable under any of the three theories. The Court found insufficient evidence for joint enterprise, an incorrect definition of civil conspiracy requiring specific intent, and no legal duty for negligent promotion under the circumstances, thereby ordering that the plaintiffs take nothing from the radio station.

Joint EnterpriseCivil ConspiracyNegligent PromotionDram Shop ActTexas Alcoholic Beverage CodeTort LawLiabilityRadio Station LiabilityNightclub LiabilityIntoxicated Driver
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Con. Ass'n

The Attorney General sought leave from the District Court to dismiss an indictment, returned in March 1959, which charged multiple defendants including associations and individuals with violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act in the ladies' blouse production industry. The charges involved alleged conspiracies to fix prices, allocate work, and establish exclusivity in New York and Pennsylvania. Only one defendant, Slate Belt, opposed the dismissal, arguing that the indictment's pendency had brought stability and prosperity to its members and fearing a return to prior restrictive practices if the prosecution ceased. The government, following a re-evaluation, contended that the available evidence was insufficient to prove the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt and that proceeding would necessitate a change in legal theory. The Court, exercising its discretion, granted the Attorney General's motion to dismiss the indictment, finding the reasons advanced were substantial and made in good faith, and that it would be futile to compel a prosecution in which the government had no faith.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCriminal ProcedureMotion to DismissNolle ProsequiProsecutorial DiscretionFederal Rules of Criminal ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury IndictmentConspiracy
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Havas v. Communications Workers of America

The plaintiffs, employees of New York Telephone Company, initiated an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the use of their agency fees by various labor organizations, including the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL/CIO), for purposes unrelated to collective bargaining. They alleged that the CWA commingled funds and made unauthorized expenditures, extending liability to the AFL/CIO and its affiliates under trust and conspiracy theories. The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants AFL/CIO and AFL/CIO C.O.P.E., rejecting the plaintiffs' arguments that a constructive trust should be imposed or that a class-based discriminatory animus, necessary for a 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) conspiracy claim, was present. Additionally, the court addressed several discovery motions, issuing partial orders regarding interrogatories and requests to produce, and limiting the scope of deposition questions. This decision clarified the extent of liability for affiliated labor organizations concerning agency fee expenditures and set boundaries for discovery in this complex labor dispute.

Collective BargainingAgency FeesLabor LawSummary JudgmentDiscovery MotionsDuty of Fair RepresentationConspiracy ClaimsNational Labor Relations ActRailway Labor ActDeclaratory Relief
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2000

Maher v. Herrman

The Maher Law Firm and Constance Maher sued former employee Regina Elkins for alleged loan repayment, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. Maher also sued Elkins's new employers, David E. Herrman and Herrman & Herrman, L.L.P., for slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy claims. Maher appealed, arguing errors related to the statute of limitations, misidentification of the plaintiff, fraudulent concealment, and the scope of the summary judgment motion regarding the conspiracy claim. The appellate court found errors in the summary judgment regarding the conspiracy claim and the application of the misidentification doctrine to plaintiffs, reversing and remanding those claims, while affirming the dismissal of the loan claims.

Summary Judgment AppealSlanderIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCivil ConspiracyStatute of LimitationsMisidentification DoctrineMisnomerRelation-Back DoctrineAppellate ProcedurePleading Errors
References
22
Case No. 14-15-00024-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2015

Microsoft Corporation// Michael Mercieca v. Michael Mercieca// Cross-Appellee, Microsoft Corporation

This Appellant's Reply Brief, filed by Microsoft Corporation, addresses an appeal regarding a retaliation/constructive discharge claim brought by Michael Mercieca. Microsoft argues that the jury's findings of constructive discharge, good faith engagement in a protected activity, and but-for causation lack legal sufficiency. The corporation contends that Mercieca's claims are based on subjective interpretations of isolated incidents and an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Furthermore, Microsoft challenges the awarded damages, including back-pay, mental anguish, and attorney's fees, arguing they are based on flawed evidence. Microsoft requests that the Court reverse the judgment and render a take-nothing judgment.

RetaliationConstructive DischargeEmployment LawTexas Commission on Human Rights ActAppealLegal SufficiencyDamagesMental AnguishAttorney's FeesConspiracy
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 760 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