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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. 01-22-00712-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2024

Ernest Polk v. Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner

Ernest Polk, a Financial Examiner I, was terminated by the Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner (OCCC) for alleged misuse of his state credit card. Polk sued OCCC for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, claiming his promotion was delayed and termination was retaliatory after he reported racial discrimination. The trial court granted OCCC's Plea to the Jurisdiction, dismissing his claims. The appellate court affirmed, finding Polk failed to establish a causal link or pretext for his retaliation claim, did not exhaust administrative remedies for his race discrimination termination claim, and the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive enough for a hostile work environment claim.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSovereign ImmunityAdministrative RemediesPlea to the JurisdictionCredit Card MisuseFailure to PromotePrima Facie Case
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Griggs v. Coca-Cola Employees' Credit Union

Olive D. Griggs, a manager for Coca-Cola Employees’ Credit Union since 1974, alleged she was retaliatorily discharged for reporting illegal activities related to irregularities in the Credit Union's computer system conversion. Griggs filed suit under the Tennessee Public Protection Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-1-304. The Credit Union moved for summary judgment, arguing Griggs could not meet the elements of a retaliatory discharge claim. The Court, presided over by District Judge Collier, granted summary judgment to the Credit Union on the statutory claim, finding Griggs could not demonstrate an exclusive causal relationship between her reporting activities and her termination, nor a contemporaneous fear of dismissal. The Court reserved ruling on whether a concurrent common law cause of action for retaliatory discharge exists, inviting further briefing.

Retaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentTennessee Public Protection ActWhistleblower ProtectionEmployment LawIllegal Activities ReportingCredit Union ManagementStatutory InterpretationCommon LawCausation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Credit One Financial v. Anderson (In re Anderson)

Plaintiff Orrin Anderson, a debtor, had his credit card debt with Credit One discharged in bankruptcy, but the debt remained on his credit report as 'charged off.' Anderson reopened his bankruptcy case and filed a class action complaint against Credit One for alleged violations of the discharge injunction. Credit One moved to compel arbitration, strike class allegations, and dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the Bankruptcy Court denied. Credit One appealed the denial to compel arbitration as of right and sought leave to appeal the denials to strike class allegations and dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court denied Credit One's motion for leave to appeal, finding no basis for pendent appellate jurisdiction or interlocutory appeal for the additional issues.

Bankruptcy Discharge InjunctionClass Action WaiverSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPendent Appellate JurisdictionArbitration AgreementFederal Statutory ClaimsContempt PowerPunitive DamagesInjunctive Relief
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1994

Podell v. Citicorp Diners Club, Inc.

Gary A. Podell initiated an action against several defendants, including Citicorp Diners Club and Citicorp Credit Services, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and state statutory and common law. Podell claimed these defendants reported erroneous credit information after an unauthorized third party obtained credit cards in his name and failed to pay debts. Diners Club and Credit Services moved to dismiss, contending they did not meet the FCRA definition of "credit reporting agencies" and the provided information was not a "consumer report." The court granted the motion, dismissing the federal FCRA claims with prejudice against the moving defendants. Subsequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Podell's remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Fair Credit Reporting ActFCRACredit ReportingConsumer ProtectionMotion to DismissSupplemental JurisdictionFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsCredit FraudCredit Report Accuracy
References
35
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04295 [172 AD3d 655]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

Capital Bus. Credit LLC v. Tailgate Clothing Co., Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court order regarding a dispute between Capital Business Credit LLC (plaintiff) and Tailgate Clothing Company, Corp. (defendant). Plaintiff purchased accounts receivable from a nonparty related to clothing manufacturing. Defendant paid some invoices but left 12 outstanding. Defendant claimed an equitable recoupment credit for payments made to the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) for severance pay to Honduran workers, which became due after the manufacturer violated local law by not paying severance. The Court found issues of fact precluding summary judgment on the account stated claim and correctly sustained the equitable recoupment defense, noting it was based on transactions linked to the defendant's licensing and manufacturing agreements. The court also rejected plaintiff's waiver and estoppel arguments.

Equitable recoupmentAccount stated claimSummary judgmentAccounts receivableBreach of contractTimeliness of objectionLicensing agreementManufacturing agreementHonduran labor lawSeverance pay
References
6
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman D/B/A Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Case No. ADJ3061465 (AHM 0065352) MF ADJ327493 (AHM 0141873)
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

PATTI SUE KIEHL-COLACCHIA vs. NORDSTROM, KINECTA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision regarding overlapping injuries from two separate claims with Nordstrom and Kinecta Federal Credit Union. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and returned the cases to the trial level. This action was taken because of an apparent miscalculation of permanent disability and the need to await reporting from a newly selected Agreed Medical Evaluator. The Board ordered the two cases to be tried together after the AME report to ensure a proper record and a correct determination of permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPatti Sue Kiehl-ColacchioNordstromKinecta Federal Credit UnionArgonaut Insurance CompanyADJ3061465ADJ327493ReconsiderationJoint Findings Award OrderIndustrial Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Torres v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. (In Re Torres)

The plaintiffs, Ms. Torres and Ms. Mateo, initiated proceedings against Chase Bank USA, N.A., alleging that the bank violated the bankruptcy discharge injunction under section 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. They contended that Chase refused to update their credit reports to reflect the discharge of their debts, causing the obligations to appear as "past due" or "charged off" and thereby coercing them into repayment. Chase moved to dismiss, arguing it had no post-discharge duty to update credit reports and that its actions did not constitute an "act to collect" a debt. The court granted Chase’s motion to dismiss the defamation and FCRA claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but denied the motion to dismiss the claims alleging violation of the discharge injunction, ruling that inaccurate credit reporting, if intended to coerce payment, could constitute such a violation.

Bankruptcy DischargeCredit Reporting AccuracyDischarge Injunction ViolationMotion to DismissFair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)Personal LiabilityDebt Collection PracticesCivil Contempt SanctionsDebt ReaffirmationJurisdiction
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Villagran v. Central Ford, Inc.

Margarita Villagran sued Central Ford, Inc. in a class action, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Villagran claimed Central Ford illegally accessed credit reports to send unsolicited mailings that were not "firm offers of credit" but mere solicitations. The court, presided over by District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal, analyzed the definition of a "firm offer of credit" under the FCRA, rejecting the Seventh Circuit's "value" test and adopting a stricter interpretation. The court concluded that the FCRA does not mandate the inclusion of specific loan terms like interest rates or repayment periods in a firm offer. Finding that Central Ford's mailing constituted a valid "firm offer of credit," the court granted summary judgment in favor of Central Ford and denied Villagran's motion for class certification as moot, also noting the difficulties in identifying class members for notice and damages distribution.

Fair Credit Reporting ActFCRAclass action lawsuitsummary judgmentfirm offer of creditcredit reportsunsolicited mailconsumer protectionlegal interpretationstatutory damages
References
71
Showing 1-10 of 6,890 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