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 Texas EZPawn Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation

This General Order addresses Defendant Texas EZPawn, L.P.'s motion for partial summary judgment concerning the calculation of damages in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) cases. Plaintiffs, former assistant store managers, allege they were improperly classified as exempt employees and denied overtime compensation. EZPawn argued for the application of the fluctuating workweek method (29 C.F.R. § 778.114) for damage calculation, citing *Blackmon v. Brookshire Grocery Company*. Plaintiffs countered that EZPawn waived this argument, the method is inapplicable, and fact issues remain. The Court denies EZPawn's motion, concluding that the fluctuating workweek method is inappropriate for misclassification cases as it is inconsistent with the remedial purposes of the FLSA, particularly the time and one-half compensation requirement for overtime, and creates adverse incentives for employers. The Court also declines to follow the Fifth Circuit precedent in *Blackmon*, deeming its reasoning flawed.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationEmployee MisclassificationFluctuating Workweek MethodSummary JudgmentDamages CalculationFederal Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeStatutory InterpretationCircuit Precedent
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Srite v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

This opinion addresses an appeal from nine consolidated asbestos cases where a jury found liability but awarded no past damages to several plaintiffs. The court, HEDGES, Justice, reviewed the proper standard of appellate review for zero damages verdicts, distinguishing between objective and subjective symptoms of injury and adhering to the Pool v. Ford Motor Co. standard. The court upheld the jury's zero past damages awards for most plaintiffs, finding them not against the great weight of the evidence. However, it reversed the trial court's application of the statute of limitations to the Spikes family's claim, remanding it for further proceedings. Additionally, the court sustained the point of error regarding prejudgment interest calculation, ruling that under Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., interest should accrue six months after the last day of asbestos exposure, rather than six months after the lawsuit filing date, and remanded the Burt and Friley cases for recalculation. The court also addressed, but did not rule on the merits of, an expert testimony admissibility challenge due to procedural errors by the plaintiffs.

Asbestos litigationzero damagesprejudgment interestappellate reviewcomparative negligencestrict liabilitylatent diseasestatute of limitationsexpert testimonymedical examination
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1985

In Re Continental Airlines Corp.

The case concerns Continental Airlines' motion to disallow or estimate at zero value the contract rejection damages claimed by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) following Continental's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. Continental had rejected its collective bargaining agreement with ALPA, and ALPA subsequently filed a $408 million claim for damages. The court asserted jurisdiction over the claim, rejecting ALPA's argument for deferral to a specialized tribunal. The court ultimately concluded that ALPA's claim for lost future wages lacked merit because the collective bargaining agreement did not guarantee employment and Continental would have ceased operations regardless. Additionally, the court found ALPA's damage calculations flawed as they extended beyond the contract's termination date. Consequently, the court disallowed ALPA's claim entirely and estimated its value at zero.

BankruptcyContract RejectionCollective Bargaining AgreementAirline IndustryLabor LawDamages EstimationBankruptcy JurisdictionArbitration DeferralRailway Labor ActChapter 11 Reorganization
References
90
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pilgrim's Pride Corp. v. Cernat

This case involves an appeal by Pilgrim's Pride Corporation concerning a rear-end collision. The plaintiffs, David Cernat and Joseph Ciupitu, sustained injuries when their towed truck was hit by a Pilgrim's Pride vehicle. The jury found both parties partially responsible. The appeals court modified the trial court's judgment, ruling that the initial calculation of damages under comparative negligence statutes was erroneous and should be reduced based on the defendant's liability percentage. However, the court affirmed the sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury's awards for the plaintiffs' lost earning capacity and future medical damages.

Comparative negligencePersonal injuryMotor vehicle accidentRear-end collisionDamagesLost earning capacityFuture medical expensesFactual sufficiencyLegal sufficiencyTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
29
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00383
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2020

U-Trend N.Y. Inv. L.P. v. US Suite LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning a judgment awarding mortgage damages to U-Trend New York Investment L.P. against US Suite LLC and Aura Investments Ltd. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's judgment by reducing the principal amount of mortgage damages awarded to U-Trend, stating that interest should be calculated at 13.5% instead of 20%. The court affirmed the judgment in other respects, including the limitation of Aura's liability for looting damages and the denial of sale damages and attorneys' fees. An appeal from a separate order denying Aura's motion to correct or vacate the judgment was dismissed as academic. The court addressed various arguments from Aura regarding liability, causation, and damages calculations, ultimately upholding liability for breach of contract but adjusting the damages amount based on the proper interest rate.

Mortgage DamagesBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyLooting DamagesInterest Rate CalculationAppellate ReviewBusiness Judgment RuleJudicial AdmissionsDerivative ClaimsAttorneys' Fees
References
20
Case No. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

K Mart Corp. v. Rhyne

This is a premises liability case where Allie Louise Rhyne slipped and fell at a K Mart store, sustaining injuries. Allie and Curtis Rhyne sued K Mart for negligence, and a jury awarded damages. K Mart appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for negligence and damages, and disputing the calculation of prejudgment interest and the admissibility of expert witness testimony from a chiropractor. The appellate court affirmed the findings of negligence and damages but reformed the prejudgment interest calculation from compounded to simple interest, as required by statute. The court also found error in admitting the chiropractor's testimony regarding surgical costs but deemed it harmless due to broad-form damage submission.

Premises LiabilityNegligenceSlip and FallPersonal InjuryDamagesPrejudgment InterestExpert Witness TestimonyChiropractor TestimonyFactual SufficiencyLegal Sufficiency
References
34
Case No. No. 02 Civ. 9530
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2008

Scott v. City of New York

Over fifteen thousand New York City police officers and detectives sued the City of New York and NYPD for alleged overtime rights violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on damages for "chart" and "regular rate" claims. The court initially denied the motion, finding plaintiffs' damages calculations flawed based on several legal interpretations, including how holiday pay and compensatory time credits should be applied. However, upon reconsideration, the court partially granted plaintiffs' motion, reversing its prior holding to deem semi-annual holiday payments non-creditable against FLSA obligations. The court otherwise adhered to its original decision regarding other calculation methods, ultimately requiring plaintiffs to recalculate damages according to the refined principles.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationPolice OfficersSummary JudgmentMotion for ReconsiderationDamages CalculationHoliday PayCompensatory TimeRegular Rate of PayCollective Bargaining Agreements
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kee

Tan-ja Kee was fired by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in response to filing and settling a workers' compensation claim. Kee sued Wal-Mart for discriminatory firing under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8307c, seeking actual and exemplary damages. A jury awarded Kee $4,500 in actual damages and $25,000 in exemplary damages, finding Wal-Mart acted with malice. Wal-Mart appealed, challenging the recoverability of exemplary damages and the sufficiency of evidence for malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing precedent that exemplary damages are recoverable and concluding that the jury's finding of malice and the damage award were supported by sufficient evidence and not excessive.

discriminatory firingworkers' compensationexemplary damagesmaliceTexas lawretaliatory dischargeemployee rightsemployer liabilityjury verdictappellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollard v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, Inc.

This case concerns the determination of compensatory damages and front pay for Plaintiff Sharon Pollard against Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. The Court previously found DuPont liable for Title VII discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After a damages hearing in July 2003, the Court concluded Plaintiff could not return to work due to severe anxiety and depression stemming from harassment and DuPont's insufficient response. The Court awarded Plaintiff $1,004,374.00 in front pay through age 65, determining she had adequately mitigated her damages. Additionally, $950,000.00 in compensatory damages was awarded for emotional distress, with a future hearing scheduled to determine punitive damages.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISexual HarassmentCompensatory DamagesFront PayIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMajor Depressive DisorderMitigation of DamagesExpert Witness Testimony
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 5,122 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