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
Jul 13, 2000

Bordeau v. Village of Deposit

Plaintiffs Brian K. Bordeau, Francis Laundry Jr., and Jeffrey S. Laundry initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as New York State common law claims, against the Village of Deposit, its Police Chief Jon Bowie, and Village Justice Peter McDade. The lawsuit arose from an incident in May 1997 involving alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action. The court denied summary judgment for claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Chief Bowie, and a state law assault and battery claim against Justice McDade. However, it granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the Village related to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct and claims against Justice McDade based on judicial immunity. Additionally, all claims against the New York State Troopers, the Village Police Department, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining federal and state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionMunicipal LiabilityJudicial ImmunityExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2005

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Hurwitz

This case involves the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) being sanctioned for egregious misconduct in its decade-long pursuit of Charles Hurwitz. The court found that the FDIC's litigation was driven by political motives, specifically a "debt-for-nature" swap scheme to acquire redwood forests from Hurwitz's company, Pacific Lumber. Despite internal and external legal advice indicating the claims lacked merit and were time-barred, the FDIC persisted, engaged in discovery abuse, misrepresented facts, and lied to the court. The administrative judge ultimately rejected all OTS claims against Hurwitz. The court ordered the FDIC to pay Maxxam, Hurwitz's indemnitor, $72,255,147.51 in sanctions for its abusive and unlawful conduct, aiming to compensate the victim and deter future institutional malfeasance.

Government SanctionsJudicial MisconductFDIC Abuse of PowerOTS Administrative ProceedingsCharles Hurwitz LitigationHeadwaters Forest ControversyPolitical ExtortionDiscovery ViolationsRule 11 ViolationsUnconstitutional Agency Actions
References
47
Case No. ADJ8011399 ADJ8967612 ADJ8967613
Regular
Feb 19, 2014

ENRIQUE DOMINGUEZ vs. WHOLE FOODS MARKETS, Permissibly SelfInsured

This case involves a dispute over attorney's fees for applicant's attorney arising from deposition conduct. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision awarding attorney's fees. The Board found that while the applicant's attorney was entitled to fees under Labor Code section 5710(b)(4), the conduct of both attorneys during a deposition was unprofessional. The WCAB ultimately affirmed the award of attorney's fees but also addressed the attorneys' unprofessional conduct.

Deposition attorney's feesLabor Code section 5710(b)(4)Unprofessional conductCompromise and releaseIndustrial injuryTeam memberWCJ decisionPetition for removalMedical record developmentAgreed medical evaluator (AME)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Concerned Taxpayers of Lee County, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) against a summary judgment holding it liable, as a bonding agent, for attorney's fees. These fees were awarded in a prior lawsuit against its principals, the trustees of the Lee County Hospital District. The Concerned Taxpayers of Lee County, Inc. and Mike Cunningham had successfully challenged the hospital district's formation and the trustees' actions, leading to a judgment for attorney's fees which the defunct district could not satisfy. Fidelity argued that the bonds did not explicitly cover attorney's fees and that the trustees had not unfaithfully performed their duties because the district was void from inception. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Fidelity's bonds broadly covered damages from the trustees' unfaithful performance as de facto officers, which included violations of the Open Meetings Act. However, the court denied Concerned Taxpayers' request for attorney's fees in the current litigation.

Bonding Agent LiabilityAttorney's FeesPublic Official BondsFidelity BondsSummary JudgmentDe Facto OfficersUnfaithful PerformanceOpen Meetings ActHospital DistrictThird-Party Beneficiary
References
16
Case No. 3-90-281-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1992

Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Concerned Taxpayers of Lee County, Inc. and Mike Cunningham

This case concerns an appeal by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) against Concerned Taxpayers of Lee County, Inc. and Mike Cunningham regarding Fidelity's liability as a bonding agent for attorney's fees. The dispute originated from an earlier case where a newly formed hospital district in Lee County was deemed unconstitutional, and its trustees were found to have violated the Open Meetings Act, leading to an award of attorney's fees against them. As the hospital district had no assets, Concerned Taxpayers sued Fidelity as the surety on the trustees' public official bonds. The trial court held Fidelity liable for the attorney's fees from the prior case but denied Concerned Taxpayers' request for attorney's fees in the current litigation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, ruling that public official bonds broadly cover damages, including attorney's fees resulting from the unfaithful performance of duties, and that the trustees' Open Meetings Act violations constituted such unfaithful performance. The court also found Concerned Taxpayers to be incidental beneficiaries in the current suit, thus not entitled to attorney's fees.

Public Official BondsSurety LiabilityAttorney's Fees RecoveryDeclaratory Judgment ActOpen Meetings Act ViolationDe Facto Officer DoctrineStatutory ConstructionAppellate ProcedureSummary Judgment AppealHospital District Formation
References
17
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) initiated a lawsuit against the Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (the Board) and its director, Michele Henricks, after the Board commenced disciplinary proceedings against Esquire. The Board alleged that Esquire's long-term volume discount agreements for court reporting services violated regulations and statutes concerning professional conduct and prohibited contracts. Esquire sought declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the Board lacked the statutory authority to regulate such discounts. The district court had previously denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction. On appeal, Justice Pemberton, presiding over the Texas Court of Appeals, reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court determined that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction to initially resolve disciplinary complaints under Chapter 52 of the Government Code. Furthermore, Esquire's claims were deemed not ripe for judicial review, as they involved hypothetical factual scenarios requiring the agency's specialized expertise to interpret and apply broad statutory terms. Consequently, Esquire's suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawStatutory InterpretationExclusive JurisdictionRipeness DoctrinePlea to JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefCourt Reporting FirmsVolume DiscountsProfessional Conduct
References
29
Case No. 149-140, 149-141
Regular Panel Decision

Budget Dress Corp. v. Joint Board of Dress & Waistmakers' Union

The Chief Judge ruled on multiple discovery motions in two consolidated actions, one alleging Sherman Act violations and the other concerning the Labor Management Relations Act. Plaintiff moved to vacate defendants’ deposition notices and subpoenas, establish deposition priority, and appoint a federal judge to supervise the process. The court denied most of the plaintiff’s motions, upholding the defendants' subpoenas and granting them priority in conducting depositions. Furthermore, the plaintiff's notice to take depositions was partially vacated, and their notice to produce was entirely vacated due to insufficient specificity. The application for a federal judge to supervise depositions was also denied, with a suggestion for a master if cooperation falters.

DiscoveryDepositionsSubpoenasSherman ActLabor Management Relations ActFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureAntitrustLabor LawPriority of DiscoveryJudicial Supervision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Principe v. Assay Partners

Fourth-party defendant Meadow Mechanical Corporation moved for sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel, Lawrence Clarke, Esq., alleging abusive conduct during depositions and an improper suggestion regarding notarizations. The court, presided over by Diane A. Lebedeff, J., found Mr. Clarke’s remarks during depositions (e.g., "little lady," "little mouse," "young girl") to be frivolous, abusive, and discriminatory, meriting sanctions under 22 NYCRR part 130. However, the allegations regarding improper notarization were denied due to a factual dispute requiring a hearing, which the court deemed inappropriate given the limited financial deterrent of part 130; instead, this matter was referred to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee. The court ordered Mr. Clarke to pay $500 to the Clients’ Security Fund and $500 to movant’s attorney as reasonable attorney's fees. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to civility and non-discriminatory conduct in the legal profession.

Attorney MisconductSanctionsGender BiasDiscovery AbuseProfessional ResponsibilityDepositionsNotarization AllegationDisciplinary ActionObjective StandardFrivolous Conduct
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 2,704 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