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

Carpenter v. Waxahachie Cotton Warehouse

Jess Carpenter sued Mrs. N. A. McMillan, doing business as Waxahachie Cotton Warehouse, for minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The trial court found that neither party was engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, and even if they were, Carpenter's employment as a night watchman at a cotton warehouse in Waxahachie, Texas, fell under the "area of production" exemption of the Act. The appellate court, presided over by Justice HALE, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court concluded that Carpenter failed to establish his engagement in interstate commerce and that the evidence sufficiently supported the application of the agricultural exemption, considering the local origin of the cotton and the small number of employees.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAWage and HourInterstate CommerceAgricultural ExemptionArea of ProductionCotton WarehouseNight WatchmanTexas LawEmployment Law
References
7
Case No. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Education Foundation, Dan Parsons, Chris Church, Church Enterprises, Inc., Gary Milleson, Ronald N. McMillan, D' Artagnan Bebel, Mark Goldie, Cha v. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. 2015-02-0061
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2016

Cotton, Alan v. HUMACare, Inc.

This Workers' Compensation case was filed by Mrs. Cotton, the surviving spouse of Alan Cotton, seeking death benefits after Mr. Cotton's fatal fall while working. The primary legal question addressed was whether HUMACare, Inc., a professional employer organization (PEO), qualified as an employer obligated to provide these benefits. The Court determined that HUMACare was indeed a co-employer of Mr. Cotton with Central USA. However, the Court also found that HUMACare bore no wage liability, as it only processed payroll from Central USA, thus absolving it of liability under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-211(a). Consequently, Mrs. Cotton's claim for widow benefits against HUMACare was denied and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Death Benefits ClaimProfessional Employer Organization (PEO)Co-Employment LiabilityWage Liability ApportionmentInsurance Carrier ResponsibilityEmployer DefinitionBurden of ProofCompensation HearingClaim DenialDismissal With Prejudice
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cotton v. Henger

This case originated from a gas explosion at the Baker Hotel in Dallas, Texas, on June 21, 1946, which killed hotel employee William Eaton Cotton. Cotton's survivors and Texas Employers Insurance Association, who paid workers' compensation benefits, filed a negligence action against Contractor W. C. Henger. The trial court granted summary judgment for Henger, claiming he was an agent, not an independent contractor. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, finding that fact questions existed regarding Henger's status as an independent contractor, his responsibility for the plumbing work, and the applicability of res ipsa loquitur. On rehearing, the court clarified its decision, sustaining the motion to leave undisturbed the trial court's judgment that Henger take nothing against the Baker Hotel in his third-party action, but reaffirming the reversal and remand of the summary judgment in favor of Henger against the plaintiffs.

Independent ContractorSummary JudgmentNegligenceGas ExplosionWorkers' CompensationThird-Party ActionRes Ipsa LoquiturPremises LiabilityConstruction ContractScope of Employment
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laurie v. Niagara Candy, Inc.

Plaintiff Lewis P. Laurie, an employee of third-party defendant Friendship Construction, Inc., sustained injuries after falling from a ladder during construction on a building owned by defendant Niagara Candy, Inc. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment regarding Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, finding no merit to the argument that Laurie was a recalcitrant worker, as there was no proof he was instructed to use his safety belt under the circumstances. Additionally, Niagara Candy's cross motion for summary judgment against Rigger Construction Co., Inc., for common-law and contractual indemnification was granted. Rigger Construction Co., Inc.'s cross motion for summary judgment against Friendship Construction, Inc., for common-law indemnification was also granted, based on the lack of evidence that either Niagara Candy or Rigger supervised or controlled the work.

Worker InjuryLadder FallLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentIndemnificationRecalcitrant WorkerConstruction AccidentPremises LiabilityEmployer LiabilityGeneral Contractor Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Venture Cotton Cooperative and Noble Americas Corp. v. Shelby Alan Freeman

Two groups of cotton farmers sued Venture Cotton Cooperative and Noble Americas Corp. for fraudulent inducement related to cooperative marketing contracts, seeking damages and statutory remedies. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, which the trial court denied, finding the arbitration agreements unconscionable. The court of appeals affirmed, citing the agreements' purported waiver of statutory rights and one-sided attorney's fees. This Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the limitation of statutory remedies was severable and the one-sided attorney's fee provision was not unconscionable per se. The case was remanded for the court of appeals to address other unconscionability arguments not previously considered.

ArbitrationFAAUnconscionabilityContract LawStatutory RemediesAttorney's FeesSeverabilityDTPACotton FarmersCooperative Marketing
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Louis Dreyfus Corp. v. Huddleston

The Louis Dreyfus Corporation faced corporate excise tax deficiencies from the Tennessee Commissioner of Revenue, who sought to tax the investment earnings of its Bond Trading Group by arguing it was part of a unitary business with its subsidiary, Allenberg Cotton Company, in Tennessee. The corporation disputed this, claiming the Bond Trading Group was a discrete business enterprise. The Chancery Court for Davidson County ruled in favor of the Louis Dreyfus Corporation, ordering a refund after finding the Bond Trading Group's earnings were business income but not part of a unitary business. This appeal by the Commissioner challenged the trial court's conclusion regarding the non-unitary nature of the Bond Trading Group. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was clear and cogent evidence that the Bond Trading Group's activities were not unitary with the corporation's other divisions or Allenberg Cotton Company.

Corporate Excise TaxNondomiciliary CorporationBusiness IncomeInvestment EarningsBond Trading ActivitiesUnitary Business PrincipleApportionment MethodTaxation LawDue Process ClauseCommerce Clause
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GAB Business Services, Inc. v. Moore

Sherry Moore, an employee of the City of Marshall, suffered a work-related injury in January 1987. Although GAB Business Services, the insurance adjuster, initially paid for some medical expenses, they denied weekly workers' compensation benefits for her back injury, claiming it was from a separate incident at home. Moore successfully appealed to the Industrial Accident Board and later won a bench trial, which found her back injury compensable and led to a lawsuit against GAB, the City, and the Risk Pool for bad faith and deceptive trade practices. A jury found in favor of Moore against GAB for $25,000 in actual damages and $75,000 in exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment against GAB, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings that GAB acted in bad faith by denying the claim without a reasonable basis, and engaged in unfair practices, causing Moore mental anguish damages. The court also rejected GAB's defenses of governmental and official immunity and upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsInsurance Bad FaithDeceptive Trade Practices ActSufficiency of EvidenceMental Anguish DamagesGovernmental ImmunityOfficial ImmunityIndependent ContractorJury InstructionsEvidentiary Rulings
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,796 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