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. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. 05-18-00567-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2018

Darlene C. Amrhein v. Attorney Lennie F. Bollinger, and Worminton & Bollinger Law Firm

The appellant, Darlene C. Balistreri-Amrhein, filed a second docket statement in her appeal (No. 05-18-00567-CV) to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Dallas, Texas, from an original proceeding in Collin County. She appeals against multiple parties, including attorneys, law firms, banks, and judges, alleging legal malpractice, fraud, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and denial of due process and constitutional rights. The appellant claims the lower court lacked proper jurisdiction, made unlawful orders, and discriminated against her due to age, disabilities, and pro se litigant status. She specifically contests a "vexatious litigant" order, stating it is unsupported and unlawful, and seeks reversal of all adverse orders and costs. The appellant also highlights her severe medical conditions, including scheduled surgeries, and requests a medical stay or inactive docket status due to her incapacitation, citing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

AppealCivil ProcedureDue ProcessJudicial MisconductFraud on CourtVexatious LitigantMedical StayDisability RightsJurisdictionLegal Malpractice
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parry v. Tompkins County

Plaintiff, a counselor for Tompkins County, alleged unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation after her job duties were changed due to client allegations. She filed a grievance and a complaint under Local Law No. 6. A settlement resolved the grievance, but conciliation efforts for the discrimination complaint ceased in May or October 1996. Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit in December 1997, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 6, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court as time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the action was time-barred under Local Law No. 6's one-year statute of limitations, as conciliation efforts terminated earlier than claimed and no continuing pattern of discrimination was established.

DiscriminationSexual OrientationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsConciliation EffortsGrievance ProcedureAppellate ReviewTime-Barred ClaimContinuing Violation DoctrineLocal Law No. 6
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1997

Murphy v. ERA United Realty

The case concerns a plaintiff suing ERA United Realty, Petee Realty, Peter Orisses, and Nick Kavourgias for sex and national origin discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, finding factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's employment status as an independent contractor or employee. The appellate court modified this decision, granting summary judgment for defendant Nick Kavourgias on the first cause of action (Executive Law § 296 (1) (a)) due to his limited role. However, it affirmed the denial of dismissal for other claims, including those under the Administrative Code and for aiding and abetting under Executive Law § 296 (6), recognizing coemployee liability under these provisions when acting in concert with an employer.

Sex DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment DiscriminationIndependent Contractor vs EmployeeSummary JudgmentExecutive LawAdministrative CodeAiding and AbettingCoemployee Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Keselman v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant appealed two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a discrimination claim. In 1986, the claimant sustained a shoulder injury and was placed on disability retirement in 1990 by the self-insured employer. In 2001, the claimant filed a discrimination claim, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found the discrimination claim untimely, as it was filed almost 11 years after the alleged discriminatory practice in 1990, exceeding the two-year statutory period under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the claimant's argument that the two-year period should start from a later Board decision.

workers' compensationdiscrimination claimtimelinessstatute of limitationsretaliationdisability retirementAppellate DivisionBoard decisionNew York lawjudicial review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Redlich v. Albany Law School of Union University

Plaintiff Allen Redlich sued Albany Law School alleging discrimination based on disability (stroke in 1983) under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act, and New York Executive Law. He claimed smaller annual raises than comparable faculty due to discriminatory bias. The defendant argued that salary increments reflected an unbiased assessment of performance and that the discrimination claims were time-barred. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. It found the ADA claim time-barred due to the plaintiff's failure to file with the EEOC. The Rehabilitation Act claim failed on the merits because the plaintiff did not show he was 'substantially limited' in a major life activity or 'regarded as' having such an impairment. The court also declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them.

Disability discriminationAmericans With Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActEmployment lawSummary judgmentEquitable tollingStatute of limitationsFederal court jurisdictionState law claimsFaculty salary
References
26
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 05-20-00994-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2022

Kenneth Henry v. Marc A. Notzon and Law Office of Marc A. Notzon, P.C.

Kenneth Henry sued Marc A. Notzon and his law office for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that Notzon's undisclosed communications with Henry's employer, Time Warner Cable (TWC), led to Henry's termination. Henry, a TWC employee, was involved in a severe accident while driving a company truck. Notzon, who had a long-standing relationship with TWC, represented both Henry and TWC regarding the accident. The federal courts previously ruled that Henry's termination was due to his causing a severe, avoidable accident, not discrimination or retaliation. The current court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Notzon, applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel because the issue of causation for Henry's termination had already been litigated and decided in the federal lawsuit. The court also rejected Henry's claim for actual damages and fee forfeiture, noting that TWC's worker's compensation administrator paid Notzon's fees, not Henry.

Collateral EstoppelBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary JudgmentCausationWrongful TerminationDisability DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationAttorney-Client PrivilegeFifth CircuitTexas Court of Appeals
References
22
Case No. 03-97-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1999

A. James Lynn v. Board of Law Examiners of the State of Texas

A. James Lynn appealed from a trial court judgment that affirmed an order by the Board of Law Examiners of the State of Texas. The Board found that Lynn did not possess the good moral character required for admission to the Bar of Texas, citing his engagement in the unauthorized practice of law, a public reprimand from the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, and violations of HUD regulations. The Travis County District Court affirmed the Board's order. On appeal, Lynn raised ten issues, including claims regarding the lack of substantial evidence, rational connection of character traits, constitutionality of the unauthorized practice of law statute, res judicata, right to a jury trial, and due process. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, overruled all of Lynn's issues, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings and that there was a clear and rational connection between Lynn's character traits and his fitness to practice law. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Bar AdmissionMoral CharacterUnauthorized Practice of LawProfessional MisconductCertified Public AccountantHUD RegulationsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessRes Judicata
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 18,321 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