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. No. 08-17-00227-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2018

Ridge Natural Resources, LLC, Calvin Smajstrla, Christopher Hawa and Wilson Hawa v. Double Eagle Royalty, LP

This case involves an arbitration dispute between two oil companies, Ridge Natural Resources, L.L.C. (appellant) and Double Eagle Royalty, L.P. (appellee), concerning a disputed royalty interest in minerals in Winkler County, Texas. Double Eagle, as successor-in-interest to the original lessors (McDaniels), sued to quiet title, and Ridge moved to compel arbitration based on a clause in a 'Royalty Lease' signed with the McDaniels. The trial court denied Ridge's motion, finding the arbitration clause unconscionable. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the agreement's cap on punitive damages is against public policy and must be severed, but found that Double Eagle failed to provide sufficient evidence to dissolve the arbitration agreement entirely on unconscionability grounds. The case was remanded with instructions to compel arbitration after severing the punitive damages prohibition.

Arbitration AgreementContract EnforceabilityUnconscionabilitySubstantive UnconscionabilityProcedural UnconscionabilityExemplary DamagesPublic PolicySeverability ClauseOil and Gas LeaseMineral Royalty Interest
References
59
Case No. M2021-01504-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2025

Charles Youree, Jr. v. Recovery House of East Tennessee, LLC

Charles Youree, Jr. filed a lawsuit against Recovery House of East Tennessee, LLC (RHET) and RHT Holdings, LLC, seeking to pierce the corporate veil to hold them liable for a prior default judgment obtained against Recovery Solutions Network, LLC (RSN). The trial court initially granted a default judgment, applying the 'Allen factors'. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 'Continental Bankers elements' were the correct framework for piercing the corporate veil. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, clarifying that the three Continental Bankers elements provide the correct standard in all corporate veil-piercing contexts, while the Allen factors are merely relevant circumstances. The Supreme Court found the complaint failed to sufficiently plead the 'fraud or wrong' and 'causation' elements, thus failing to articulate a claim for piercing the corporate veil. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Corporate Veil PiercingLimited LiabilityDefault JudgmentAppellate ReviewRule 59.04 MotionContinental Bankers ElementsAllen FactorsParent-Subsidiary LiabilityPleading StandardsCorporate Separateness
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency

This memorandum-decision and order addresses defendants' motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff, an African-American, alleged racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation by the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency (OCRRA) and individual defendants under Title VII, NYSHRL, and §§ 1981a, 1983. The court granted summary judgment for defendants, dismissing NYSHRL claims due to the election of remedies doctrine. Title VII claims against individual defendants were deemed redundant or untimely. The court found plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation, or to show pretext. Hostile work environment claims were dismissed for lack of exhaustion and insufficient evidence. Conspiracy and New York Public Authorities Law claims were also dismissed, leading to the closure of the case.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
References
47
Case No. 04-14-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Burton Kahn v. Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc.

Burton Kahn, former president of Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc., was terminated for misconduct in August 2013. In retaliation, Kahn allegedly transferred over $340,000 from Helvetia's accounts, recorded fraudulent warranty deeds conveying Helvetia's real estate to his new corporation, Paradiv Corporation, and falsely claimed to be Helvetia's sole shareholder. Helvetia sued Kahn for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, money had and received, and slander of title. A jury found in favor of Helvetia, awarding substantial actual and exemplary damages. Kahn subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, during which his non-exempt assets, including his appellate rights in this case, were sold to Helvetia by the bankruptcy trustee. This brief, filed by Helvetia, argues that Kahn lacks standing to pursue this appeal due to the sale of his appellate rights, effectively rendering the appeal moot, and that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent DeedsAsset MisappropriationAppellate Rights SaleBankruptcy EstateCollateral EstoppelTexas LawCivil LitigationCorporate MalfeasanceInjunctive Relief
References
112
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. v. Islip Resource Recovery Agency

This action stems from a contractual dispute regarding the construction of a waste disposal plant between Pennsylvania Energy Resources Company (PERC), Pennsylvania Engineering Corporation (PEC), and the Islip Resource Recovery Agency. Following an arbitrator's decision finding PERC in default, which was confirmed by the court on April 12, 1989, dismissing plaintiffs' case, PERC and PEC moved to reargue and amend their complaint. They sought to vacate the arbitration award based on alleged arbitrator bias, attempting to relate back the amended complaint. The Court denied these motions, emphasizing that the Federal Arbitration Act's three-month statute of limitations for vacating an award has no common law or Rule 15(c) exceptions under these circumstances. The court further found that the plaintiffs were aware of potential bias at the time of selecting the arbitrator, thus precluding equitable tolling.

ArbitrationContractual DisputeSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActRule 15cRelation Back DoctrineEquitable TollingArbitrator BiasStatute of LimitationsMotion to Amend
References
6
Case No. 14-16-00933-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2018

Central Petroleum Limited v. Geoscience Resource Recovery, LLC

This case involves an appeal by Central Petroleum Limited, an Australian company, against the denial of its special appearance in a Texas lawsuit filed by Geoscience Resource Recovery, LLC (GRR). GRR sued Central for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and fraudulent misrepresentation related to an agreement to find a farmout partner for Central's petroleum rights. Central contested personal jurisdiction, arguing the alleged "Second Agreement" with a Texas forum-selection clause was unauthorized, fabricated, and incomplete. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding sufficient evidence of Central's purposeful availment of Texas law through its agent's apparent authority to sign the contract and a substantial connection between Central's Texas contacts and GRR's tort claims. The court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction would not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Special AppearancePersonal JurisdictionBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitFraudulent MisrepresentationForum-Selection ClauseChoice-of-Law ProvisionApparent AuthorityCorporate AgentOil and Gas
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Double Green Produce, Inc. v. Forum Supermarket Inc.

Plaintiff Double Green Produce, Inc. sued Defendants Forum Supermarket Inc. and Hong Wen Cai for failure to pay for wholesale produce under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) and other claims. After Defendants defaulted, Plaintiff moved for default judgment. Although initially recommended for denial due to jurisdictional concerns, the Court allowed Plaintiff to submit additional information. Upon review, the Court found Forum to be a PACA 'dealer' and that Plaintiff had preserved its trust rights. The Court determined Defendants' default was willful and that Defendant Cai was personally liable for dissipating trust assets. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding $23,080.75 in damages, $5579.82 in prejudgment interest, and $4074.25 in attorneys' fees, totaling $32,734.82.

PACAPerishable Agricultural CommoditiesDefault JudgmentBreach of ContractStatutory TrustFiduciary DutyInterstate CommerceWholesale ProduceDamages AwardPrejudgment Interest
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Luby's Fuddruckers Restaurants, LLC

This case concerns an appeal by the State and a cross-appeal by Luby's Fuddruckers Restaurants, LLC regarding a condemnation suit. The State challenged a lost profits award to Luby's, arguing it constituted an impermissible double recovery. Luby's cross-appealed the trial court's exclusion of certain jury charge language related to the value of kitchen equipment as fixtures. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discretion in the jury charge but agreed with the State that the lost profits award was a double recovery, thereby reversing that portion of the judgment and affirming the rest.

CondemnationEminent DomainJust CompensationLost ProfitsDouble RecoveryJury ChargeFixturesMarket Value AppraisalProperty TakingTexas Law
References
28
Case No. 03-03-00580-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2004

McManus-Wyatt Produce Co., Inc., D/B/A McManus-Wyatt Produce Marketing Co., Inc. v. Texas Department of Agriculture Produce Recovery Fund Board Eddy Carnes Carnes Farms, Inc. And Allen Carnes

McManus-Wyatt Produce Co. appealed a district court order affirming a decision by the Texas Department of Agriculture Produce Recovery Fund Board. The Board had awarded Carnes damages for a breach-of-contract complaint against McManus. McManus argued that the Board's administrative determination violated its state constitutional right to a jury trial for a breach-of-contract claim. The appellate court agreed, finding that the administrative scheme completely abrogated this right, which was established prior to the 1876 Texas Constitution. Consequently, the court held the Board's order unconstitutional as applied to McManus, reversing the district court's final order and vacating the Board's decision.

Jury Trial RightConstitutional ViolationBreach of ContractAdministrative Due ProcessProduce Recovery FundTexas Constitution Article I Section 15Appellate Court ReviewStatutory SchemeAgriculture LawDe Novo Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKenna v. County of Nassau Office of County Attorney

In a case involving an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, a police officer sought to modify an arbitrator's award related to no-fault benefits. The officer, injured in a job-related accident, received full salary under General Municipal Law § 207-c and also applied for no-fault benefits. The arbitrator's award did not deduct the wage continuation payments, leading Special Term to vacate the award to prevent double recovery. The appellate court reversed Special Term's decision, finding the arbitrator's award was not irrational enough to warrant vacatur. However, the court did modify the award due to a miscalculation, acknowledging a statutory loophole in the original no-fault law that permitted such double recovery, which has since been legislatively closed.

Arbitration AwardNo-Fault Insurance BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law 207-cDouble RecoveryStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReversalCPLR 7511Police Officer InjuryInsurance Law § 671Miscalculation of Award
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,108 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