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
Jun 15, 1984

Polito v. Polito

The plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing her complaint seeking rescission of a release and reformation of a deed, alleging duress. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the complaint. The appellate court found ample evidence of the defendant's physical and emotional abuse, which compelled the plaintiff to sign the release, thus depriving her of free will. The court reversed the lower court's judgment, reinstated the complaint, and remitted the matter for entry of a judgment rescinding the release and reforming the deed to establish joint tenancy of the property.

DuressRescissionDeed ReformationDomestic ViolenceSpousal AbuseJoint TenancyEquitable ReliefAppellate ReviewFree WillRatification of Agreement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Ass'n of Plastic & Fibre Workers, Local No. 1 v. Spaulding Fibre Co.

This case involves an action for reformation of a contract where the Special Term correctly dismissed the defendant's affirmative defenses of final resolution of issues and res judicata. These defenses were based on a prior arbitration award. However, the arbitrator's written decision explicitly stated that arbitration was not the appropriate forum for contract reformation, deeming it a judicial function. Consequently, the action for contract reformation could not be precluded by the arbitration award because the arbitrator did not address the specific issue. The court referenced established law that res judicata applies only to issues actually resolved by arbitration, and an award is not a bar to a subsequent action if the issue was not passed upon by the arbitrators. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order.

Contract ReformationRes JudicataArbitration AwardScope of ArbitrationJudicial FunctionAffirmative DefensesContract InterpretationAppeal from OrderErie CountyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 08-17-00104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2020

WTX Fund, LLC v. Ray Holt Brown, Patti Holt Elkins, Janie H. Giddiens Trust, Bobby Van Holt Revocable Living Trust, Jay F. Holt, John Thomas Holt, Cheryl Jones, Debra Lynn Morgan Revocable Trust, Judy K. Wadsworth and Susan G. Wesson Revocable Living Trust

WTX Fund, LLC (Appellant) appealed the trial court's ruling on cross motions for summary judgment concerning the interpretation of a 1951 mineral deed. The core dispute was whether the original grantors conveyed their entire mineral interest or reserved their royalty interest. The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of the Holt heirs (Appellees), concluding that the deed conveyed all mineral interests, including the royalty. However, the appellate court determined that the 1951 deed expressly excluded the grantors' royalty right in its entirety from the conveyance. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, rendered partial judgment in favor of WTX, and remanded the case for a reconsideration of WTX’s remedy and attorney's fees.

Mineral Deed InterpretationRoyalty InterestNon-Participating RoyaltyExecutive RightsMineral Estate AttributesDeed ConstructionSummary JudgmentReversed JudgmentRemand for RemedyAttorney Fees
References
34
Case No. No. 10-07-00320-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2008

Joan E. Givens, Shannon Kraus, and Gregory D. Givens, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of William L. Givens, J. Harold Sewell and Alamo Title Company v. Elvis Ward and Dianna Ward

This case concerns a property transaction involving the sale of a 115-acre tract from the Givenses to the Wards, where a mineral interest reservation specified in the sales contract was omitted from the subsequent warranty deed. The Wards filed a declaratory judgment action, claiming ownership of the mineral rights, while the Givenses counterclaimed for deed reformation based on mutual mistake. Additionally, J. Harold Sewell and Alamo Title Company intervened, alleging breach of a compliance agreement and seeking specific performance from the Wards for refusing to sign a correction deed. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Wards, but the appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the original agreement for mineral reservation and the existence of a mutual mistake. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Real Estate LawMineral RightsDeed ReformationMutual MistakeContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProperty LawCompliance AgreementTexas Law
References
59
Case No. 2-03-316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2004

Janice Turner Conner v. Jason Laurence Johnson

Janice Turner Conner sued her nephew, Jason Laurence Johnson, asserting a parol gift of land from her mother, Lora Lee Turner, which Lora Lee later deeded to Jason. The jury found no parol gift, and the trial court entered judgment for Jason, including attorney's fees. Janice appealed, arguing the trial court improperly excluded her testimony about the gift and erred in awarding attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals found the Dead Man's Rule did not apply but deemed the exclusion of hearsay testimony harmless due to other admitted evidence. The court reformed the judgment by deleting the attorney's fees award, affirming the judgment as reformed.

Trespass to Try TitleQuiet TitleEasementParol GiftStatute of FraudsDonative IntentDead Man's RuleHearsay ExceptionStatement Against InterestEvidentiary Ruling
References
49
Case No. E2012-02417-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2013

Earlene Gregory v. Michael Melhorn

Earlene Gregory sued Michael and Cynthia Melhorn alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation concerning defects in a house they sold her, specifically regarding the exterior walls, basement, and drainage. The Melhorns' Tennessee Residential Property Disclosure statement reportedly failed to disclose these issues. During discovery, it was revealed that the property deed mistakenly listed Gregory's three sons as grantees instead of Gregory, leading the trial court to grant summary judgment to the Melhorns due to Gregory's perceived lack of standing. The trial court also denied Gregory's motions to amend her complaint to seek deed reformation and to allow her sons to intervene as plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville vacated the trial court's summary judgment, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying both the motion to amend the complaint and the motion for intervention, emphasizing the judicial policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits rather than procedural technicalities.

real estate fraudnegligent misrepresentationproperty disclosurestandingdeed reformationinterventionsummary judgmentabuse of discretionappellate reviewcivil procedure
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Black

This civil rights action, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, involves protestors and activists who alleged violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights at the State University of New York at Buffalo. The plaintiffs displayed graphic anti-abortion photo-murals and claimed that university officials intentionally allowed counter-demonstrators to obstruct their exhibit, thereby impairing their freedom of speech and equal protection rights. The court addressed the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, as well as the plaintiffs' standing to sue. It denied the motion to dismiss for the remaining plaintiffs—Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc., UB Students for Life, and Matthew Ramsey—finding they plausibly alleged constitutional violations based on viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. However, the court dismissed Gregg Cunningham, Darius Hardwick, and Christian Andzel from the action without prejudice due to lack of individual standing.

Civil RightsFirst AmendmentEqual Protection42 U.S.C. § 1983Motion to DismissStandingViewpoint DiscriminationUniversity ProtestsAnti-abortionPublic Forum
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lynch v. City of Jellico

The case consolidated appeals from Jerry Wayne Lynch and David A. Lozano, challenging the constitutionality of several provisions within the Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 2004. Specifically, the plaintiffs contested the mandatory benefit review conference, the multiplier used for permanent partial disability benefits, and the reliance on the AMA Guides for anatomical impairment. The trial judge had previously ruled these provisions unconstitutional, citing violations of due process, separation of powers, open courts, and equal protection, as well as the Tennessee Human Rights Act and Tennessee Handicap Act. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, affirming the constitutionality of all challenged provisions. The Court found that these statutory elements serve legitimate state interests in ensuring uniformity, predictability, and cost efficiency within the workers' compensation system, and do not infringe upon the stated constitutional rights or acts.

Workers' CompensationConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSeparation of PowersOpen Courts DoctrineBenefit Review ConferencePermanent Partial DisabilityAMA GuidesMultiplier Provisions
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Perez

This Order addresses challenges by six defendants to the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the Sentencing Guidelines. District Judge Nowlin found that the Act violates the separation of powers doctrine and Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, particularly concerning the composition and authority of the Sentencing Commission and the lack of presidential presentment for the Guidelines. The Court further ruled that the Sentencing Guidelines infringe upon defendants' due process rights by unduly restricting judicial discretion in sentencing and limiting the consideration of individual circumstances. While concluding the unconstitutional provisions could be severed, the Court directed that, pending appellate review, sentences for offenses committed after November 1, 1987, should be determined as if committed before that date, accounting for the absence of parole.

Sentencing Reform ActSentencing GuidelinesConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersArticle IDue ProcessJudicial DiscretionFederal Criminal JusticeJudicial IndependencePresentment Clause
References
42
Case No. 03-08-00475-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2010

Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom v. Amadeo Saenz, Jr., P.E., Individually and in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Transportation Coby Chase, , Individually and in His Official Capacity as Director of the Texas Department of Transportation

Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom (TURF) appealed a district court judgment dismissing its suit against officials and entities of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) on a plea to the jurisdiction. TURF argued that the district court erred in granting the plea and abused its discretion by denying a continuance. TURF sought injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that TxDOT's expenditures on the "Keep Texas Moving" (KTM) campaign constituted illegal expenditures and ultra vires acts, violating government code sections and the federal Hatch Act, by influencing public policy and lobbying. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that TURF failed to establish standing to challenge past expenditures and did not state a valid claim for ultra vires conduct under the relevant statutes, which were interpreted to prohibit partisan political activities, not general public policy advocacy.

Plea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimTaxpayer StandingPolitical PurposeLobbyingHatch ActGovernment EthicsPublic Funds ExpenditureTransportation Policy
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 288 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