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

In Re Willis

The debtor, Trennis Earl Willis, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. An asset in his estate is a personal injury claim, for which he had a contingency fee contract with attorney Frank L. Supercinski. Supercinski sought approval for his fees ($20,000 plus expenses) from a $50,000 settlement of the personal injury claim and approval of a disbursement scheme. Both the Debtor and the Chapter 7 Trustee objected, arguing the contingency fee contract was executory and rejected by the estate. The Court, presided over by Judge Donald R. Sharp, found the contingency fee agreement to be executory and deemed rejected as not assumed by the Trustee. However, applying the common fund doctrine, the Court acknowledged Supercinski's entitlement to fees from the settlement proceeds with priority. Despite this, all of Supercinski's motions (for fees, settlement approval, and relief from stay) were denied due to procedural flaws, such as the settlement not being finalized or approved, and the lack of a settlement agreement copy. The Court clarified that the settlement check is property of the Debtor's estate and must be administered under bankruptcy rules, instructing Supercinski to file a proper application once the settlement is finalized and approved.

Chapter 7 BankruptcyContingency Fee AgreementAttorney's FeesExecutory ContractAutomatic Stay ReliefCommon Fund DoctrineQuantum MeruitTexas LawPersonal Injury SettlementBankruptcy Estate
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adkins v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.

This case addresses whether a Texas trial judge has the authority to change the terms of attorneys’ fee contracts between attorneys and their clients in mass tort litigation that is not a class action. The Appellants, consisting of 49 law firms led by Fleming, Hovenkamp & Grayson, representing approximately 37,000 plaintiffs, challenged a trial court’s order that reduced their contingent fees and expenses from a settlement with Shell Oil Company and Hoechst Celanese Corporation regarding defective polybutylene plumbing systems. The appellate court reviewed general contract law, exceptions (fraud, incapacity), and the inapplicability of class action and common fund doctrines. It also considered whether the settlement agreement itself granted the trial judge such authority. The court concluded that, absent pleading and proof of barratry, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, incapacity, illegality, class action, or common fund doctrine applicability, a trial judge lacks the power to modify a fully-performed attorney fee contract. Therefore, the court reversed the portions of the appealed judgments dealing with the award of attorneys’ fees and remanded the cases for further proceedings.

Attorney's FeesContingency Fee ContractsContract LawAppellate ReviewMass Tort LitigationTrial Court AuthoritySettlement AgreementTexas LawClass Action InapplicabilityCommon Fund Doctrine Inapplicability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Marin v. Constitution Realty, LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the division of attorneys' fees among Sheryl Menkes (appellant), David B. Golomb, and Jeffrey A. Manheimer (respondents). Menkes, attorney of record for plaintiffs in a personal injury action, had agreements with both Golomb and Manheimer for fee sharing. The primary dispute concerned Golomb's share, contingent on whether the case settled at a specific mediation session (12% fee) or later (40% fee). The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the contract unambiguous that the mediation session concluded on a specific date, entitling Golomb to the higher fee, and that Manheimer was entitled to 20% as per his agreement. The court rejected Menkes's arguments based on contract interpretation and professional conduct rules.

Attorney's FeesContract InterpretationMediation AgreementFee DisputePersonal Injury ActionQuantum MeruitProfessional ConductNew York LawSettlement NegotiationsStructured Settlement
References
13
Case No. E2010-00170-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2010

Dillard Construction, Inc. v. Haron Contracting Corp.

Dillard Construction, Inc. (Dillard) appealed a Chancery Court decision regarding a complex construction dispute with its demolition subcontractor, Havron Contracting Corp. (Havron). The lower court held Dillard liable to Havron for $91,100 under quantum meruit for work performed by Havron's subcontractors, denied Dillard an offset for damaged electrical equipment, and allowed Havron to recover attorney's fees awarded against it to its subcontractor H&S Construction through a 'pass-through' indemnity theory from Dillard. Dillard challenged the quantum meruit award and the denial of the offset, while Havron challenged the denial of indemnification for its own incurred attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the quantum meruit award and the denial of the offset, finding the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's findings. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny Havron its own attorney's fees, citing Havron's lack of good faith in denying payment to H&S and its violation of the Prompt Pay Act.

Construction DisputeQuantum MeruitContract LawIndemnityAttorney's FeesSubcontractor ClaimsPrompt Pay ActBreach of ContractEquitable RemediesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. 01-96-01528-CV, 01-98-00409-CV, 01-98-00016-CV, 01-98-00413-CV, 01-98-00124-CV, 01-98-00103-CV, 01-97-01321-CV, 01-98-00414-CV, 01-00-00289-CV, 01-00-00288-CV, 01-98-00018-CV, 01-98-00412-CV, 01-98-00415-CV, 01-98-00410-CV, 01-98-00411-CV and 01-00-00290-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2000

In Re Polybutylene Plumbing Litigation

The case addresses whether a trial judge can unilaterally modify attorneys' fee contracts in mass tort litigation outside of class action rules. Appellants, a coalition of 49 law firms, challenged a trial court's order reducing their contingent fees in a polybutylene plumbing settlement. The trial court, acting *sua sponte*, deemed the aggregate fees excessive despite the absence of fraud, fiduciary breach, or client incapacity claims. The Court of Appeals examined the applicability of general contract law, class action principles, the common fund doctrine, and inherent judicial authority. The appellate court concluded that none of these exceptions allowed for the modification of valid, fully-performed attorney-client contracts, thereby reversing the trial court's decision regarding attorneys' fees.

Attorneys' FeesContingent Fee ContractsContract LawJudicial AuthorityMass Tort LitigationPolybutylene PlumbingNot a Class ActionCommon Fund Doctrine InapplicableTexas LawAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2001

Vitale v. Buttafuoco & Associates

The plaintiff initiated an action against the defendant, seeking damages for breach of contract. The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding that the plaintiff had established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court agreed with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the defendant, who had represented the plaintiff in a prior negligence lawsuit, improperly included a portion of a waived workers' compensation lien as part of its contingency fee. This action was deemed a breach of the retainer agreement and a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 24. The defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was also properly denied.

Breach of contractContingency feeWorkers' Compensation lienSummary judgmentRetainer agreementAppellate reviewLegal feesAttorney misconductWaiver of lienNew York law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc.

Appellant Leonardo Rodriguez appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc. in a suit concerning the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Rodriguez was injured while working and asserted negligence claims against Lockhart Contracting, arguing he was not an employee of Prime Source, the Professional Employer Organization (PEO) Lockhart Contracting had a co-employment agreement with. The appellate court identified a genuine issue of material fact regarding Rodriguez's employment status with Prime Source, as he had not completed the necessary employment paperwork. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, which had barred Rodriguez's suit based on the exclusive remedy provision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation DisputeExclusive Remedy DefenseProfessional Employer Organization LiabilityCo-employment RelationshipSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor Code ComplianceWorkplace Injury ClaimAppellate Review StandardFactual DisputeNegligence Action
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maxwell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

This is an appeal concerning the award of counsel fees in a no-fault automobile accident case. The plaintiff appealed the Trial Term's decision denying an excess counsel fee award, which was initially granted at the statutory maximum. Plaintiff argued that the case involved novel issues related to an exclusion clause and the basis for disclaimer under No-Fault Law, warranting higher fees. The appellate court affirmed the Trial Term's decision, finding that the issues, while skillfully handled, were not sufficiently novel or unique to justify an excess fee under 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (8) (vii), as they relied on established contract law and statutory construction. The court also rejected the plaintiff's constitutional challenge regarding the impairment of contracts, clarifying that the fee limitation only applies to the insurer, not the client, and dismissed an ex parte communication claim as outside the record.

No-Fault BenefitsCounsel FeesExcess Fee AwardStatutory InterpretationContract Law PrinciplesConstitutional ChallengeImpairment ClauseAppellate DivisionInsurance RegulationsLegal Practice
References
8
Case No. 01-19-00971-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Patriot Contracting, LLC and Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Shelter Products, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Patriot Contracting, LLC (general contractor) and Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America (surety) challenging a trial court's judgment. The judgment was in favor of appellees Shelter Products, Inc. (material supplier) and Kancor Companies, LLC (subcontractor). The original suit involved claims for breach of contract, statutory violations under the Texas Construction Trust Fund Act and Texas Public Prompt Pay Act, and judicial foreclosure of mechanic's and materialman's liens. The core dispute stemmed from Patriot's alleged failure to pay Kancor for work on the Temenos project, which in turn led to Kancor's inability to pay Shelter for materials. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's findings on Mary Carter agreements, sufficiency of evidence regarding material breach, improper jury argument, jury charge errors, perfection of liens, attorney's fees, pre-judgment interest, and declaratory judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety.

Construction LawBreach of ContractPayment BondMechanic's LienMaterialman's LienTexas Construction Trust Fund ActTexas Public Prompt Pay ActAppellate ReviewDirected VerdictJury Instruction
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swafford v. Harris

The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed certified questions concerning the enforceability of contingency fee contracts between a personal injury plaintiff and his physician. The Court held that contracts for medico-legal expert services or medical treatment, where the fee is contingent on the litigation's outcome, are void as against Tennessee public policy, as reflected in the AMA Code of Ethics and the Tennessee Code of Professional Responsibility. Additionally, the Court determined that quantum meruit recovery is not appropriate in these cases, as it would undermine strong public policies safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process and preventing unprofessional conduct.

Contingency FeesExpert WitnessPublic PolicyContract LawQuantum MeruitProfessional EthicsPhysician ServicesAttorney ConductJudicial IntegrityMedico-Legal Consulting
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 7,592 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