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

McCollough v. McCollough

Randy McCollough appealed a partial summary judgment granted to his ex-wife, Cherie McCollough, regarding the modification of alimony payments. Randy sought to modify his contractual alimony obligations, based on an alleged informal marriage by Cherie, by invoking provisions of Chapter 8 of the Texas Family Code, which governs spousal maintenance. Cherie argued that their agreement incident to divorce, which established the alimony, was a contract governed by contract law and not subject to modification under Chapter 8. The appellate court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, holding that the contractual alimony agreement between Randy and Cherie was governed by contract law and not the termination and modification provisions of Chapter 8 of the Family Code. The court emphasized the historical distinction between court-ordered alimony and contractual alimony in Texas law and found that the parties' agreement intended to create a contractual obligation outside of Chapter 8's strict limitations.

Alimony ModificationContractual AlimonySpousal MaintenanceTexas Family Code Chapter 8Summary Judgment AppealContract LawDivorce AgreementStatutory InterpretationInformal MarriagePost-Divorce Support
References
41
Case No. 14-12-00418-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2013

Miguel Angel Pappolla v. Marcia Juliet Simovich

Miguel Angel Pappolla appealed a trial court's wage withholding order for contractual alimony, which was part of a divorce settlement with Marcia Julieta Simovich. Pappolla failed to make payments, prompting Simovich to seek enforcement through wage withholding. Pappolla argued that contractual alimony is not subject to wage withholding under Texas Family Code, section 8.101, and that the relevant section violates the Texas Constitution. The appellate court reviewed legal precedent uniformly rejecting income withholding for purely contractual alimony. The court concluded that income withholding for contractual alimony is only permissible under section 8.101 if it meets the requirements for spousal maintenance, which was not established in this case. The court also identified constitutional problems with the appellee's interpretation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and vacated the wage withholding.

alimonywage withholdingcontractual alimonyspousal maintenanceTexas Family Codedivorce settlementappealappellate courtlegal interpretationconstitutional law
References
10
Case No. 03-05-00558-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2006

Randy F. McCollough v. Cherie McCollough

This case concerns Randy McCollough's appeal to modify alimony payments he was required to make to his ex-wife, Cherie McCollough, under an agreement incident to their divorce. Randy relied on provisions in Chapter 8, Subchapter B of the Texas Family Code, arguing that Cherie had entered an informal marriage or that there was a material and substantial change of circumstances. Cherie obtained a partial summary judgment, contending that their contractual alimony agreement was governed by contract law and not the Family Code, and thus was not subject to modification under Chapter 8. The appellate court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, holding that the contractual alimony obligation was governed by contract law, not Chapter 8 of the Family Code, as the agreement itself did not reference Chapter 8 and its terms would have violated Chapter 8's limitations.

alimony modificationcontractual alimonyspousal maintenanceTexas Family Code Chapter 8divorce decreesummary judgmentcontract lawappellate reviewinformal marriagecohabitation
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jan S. v. Leonard S.

This case concerns an ex-wife's motion for an upward modification of her $100 weekly lifetime alimony, established in a 1974 divorce decree, from her wealthy ex-husband. Despite suffering from mental illness, poverty, and homelessness, a Special Referee recommended denying her request. The court, presided over by Justice Matthew F. Cooper, confirmed the Referee's report, finding no substantial or unforeseen change in circumstances. The court ruled that her status as a "public charge" and the effects of inflation were not new developments justifying an increase, emphasizing that the ex-husband is not solely responsible for her continued difficulties. The ex-wife's motion for increased alimony and attorney's fees was denied, with the original alimony amount maintained.

DivorceAlimonySpousal SupportUpward ModificationChange in CircumstancesSpecial Referee ReportPublic ChargeMental IllnessHomelessnessInflation
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mejia v. Trustees of Net Realty Holding Trust

The third-party defendant, Plaster Master, appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which had denied its motion for judgment as a matter of law on a contractual indemnification claim. The lower court had found Plaster Master contractually obligated to indemnify Kimco Realty Services, Inc., the general contractor, in a case stemming from a personal injury lawsuit by a Plaster Master employee. The appellate court found the indemnification provision in the contract, drafted by Kimco, to be ambiguous. Due to the ambiguity and lack of clarifying parol evidence, the court resolved the ambiguity against Kimco. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted Plaster Master's motion, and dismissed Kimco's third-party claim for contractual indemnification.

Contractual IndemnificationAmbiguity in ContractParol EvidenceConstruction LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral ContractorSubcontractor LiabilityMeeting of the MindsThird-Party Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodrigues v. N & S Building Contractors, Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Rodrigues, an employee of Caldas Concrete Company, Inc., was injured at a construction site. Plaintiffs commenced an action against the property owner and N & S Building Contractors, Inc., which in turn initiated a third-party action against Caldas for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court dismissed N & S's contractual indemnification claim against Caldas. N & S appealed this dismissal, arguing the agreement provided for indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the indemnification clause did not unambiguously cover injuries sustained by Caldas employees.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law § 241(6)Third-Party ActionConstruction Site InjuryEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor IndemnityGrave InjuryStrict Construction
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Podhaskie v. Seventh Chelsea Associates

A judgment entered February 14, 2003, which granted summary judgment to third-party defendant Regional Scaffolding & Hoisting Company, Inc. (Regional) dismissing a third-party complaint seeking contractual indemnity, was reversed. The appellate court reinstated the third-party complaint and all cross claims. The case involves an injured carpenter, employed by Regional, who sued the owner (Seventh Chelsea Associates) and construction manager (HRH Construction Corporation) for personal injuries under the Labor Law. These appellants then brought a third-party action against Regional for contractual indemnification. The lower court dismissed this claim, finding no existing contract for indemnity at the time of the accident. However, the appellate court found an issue of fact regarding whether various documents, including a bid proposal, certificate of insurance, and a later formal contract, demonstrated Regional's intent for the indemnification to apply retroactively, thus precluding summary dismissal.

Contractual IndemnitySummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintRetroactive ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawLabor LawAppellate DivisionScaffolding AccidentPersonal InjuryConstruction Project
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2009

Tullino v. Pyramid Companies

The case involves an appeal by third-party defendant Terra Firma Construction Corp. from an order denying its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification. The underlying action concerns personal injuries sustained by a plaintiff due to exposure to fireproofing material at a construction site. Third-party plaintiffs, including premises owners and contractors, brought an indemnification claim against Terra Firma, the injured plaintiff's employer. Terra Firma argued there was no contractual indemnification agreement. The Supreme Court found a triable issue of fact regarding whether a purchase order and an unsigned "Appendix A" constituted a binding indemnification agreement between Terra Firma and third-party plaintiff HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that a factual dispute existed regarding the parties' intent to be bound by Appendix A.

Workers' Compensation LawContractual IndemnificationSummary Judgment MotionEmployer LiabilityPersonal Injury DamagesThird-Party ActionConstruction AccidentExpress AgreementPurchase OrderSubcontract Agreement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2012

Grant v. City of New York

The case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, concerning a personal injury action. The plaintiff was injured after falling from a ladder while performing electrical work and asserted claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6), and common-law negligence against the City of New York. The City, in turn, filed a third-party action for contractual indemnification against the plaintiff's employer, A & S Electric, Inc. The appellate court modified the original order by granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) and granting the City's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Additionally, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the City on its contractual indemnification claim against A & S Electric, Inc.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction AccidentLadder SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractual IndemnificationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionNegligence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2005

Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund v. Blakel Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying renewal of a prior summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the renewal. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, ruling that the denial of a summary judgment motion does not constitute collateral estoppel as it is not an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the court granted renewal and, upon renewal, awarded summary judgment to Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. and Inner City Drywall. Additionally, F & S Real Estate Development Corp. was awarded summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. The court found the indemnification provisions enforceable due to the lack of evidence of active negligence by the plaintiffs and insufficient evidence from defendants regarding supervision or control over the injury-producing work. However, the motion for summary judgment on common-law indemnification was denied due to unresolved factual issues concerning liability.

Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationConstruction ContractsActive NegligenceRight to Stop WorkAppellate DivisionBronx CountyWorker's Compensation Law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,229 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