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

John Leeman Isaacs and Susan Gail Isaacs v. Robert G. Schleier, Jr., and Schleier & Brown, P.C.

John Leeman Isaacs and Susan Gail Isaacs appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of their former attorney, Robert G. Schleier, Jr., and his firm, Schleier & Brown, P.C. The Isaacses alleged legal malpractice, breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and constructive fraud stemming from Schleier's representation during the sale of their racetrack to Charles Bishop. They claimed Schleier failed to disclose a dual attorney-client relationship, which came to light during a previous lawsuit, harming their defense. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that all the Isaacses' claims were in fact legal malpractice, subject to a two-year statute of limitations. The court found that the Isaacses were aware of the dual representation allegations by October 2002, and no tolling provisions applied, thereby barring their 2005 lawsuit.

Legal malpracticeStatute of limitationsDual representationAttorney-client relationshipFraudulent concealmentDiscovery ruleHughes tolling provisionSummary judgmentBreach of contractNegligence
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferrara v. Jordache Enterprises Inc.

This case involves a conflict of interest arising from the dual representation of a school bus driver, Christine Ferrara, and a matron, Angela Garguilo, by the same law firm after a collision between their bus and a car. Defendants HVT, Inc., Jordache Enterprises, Inc., and Deborah and Ralph Nakash moved and cross-moved for the disqualification of the firm, citing disciplinary rules against representing a driver and passenger jointly due to potential counterclaims and conflicts. The court found that such dual representation constitutes a clear conflict, especially given that counterclaims against the driver were indeed asserted. The plaintiffs' counsel's arguments regarding co-employee status and sole liability of the defendant were deemed unavailing without proper motions. The court granted the disqualification, relieving counsel from representing both plaintiffs and imposing a 60-day stay for them to secure new counsel, while denying other pending motions with leave to renew.

Conflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationDual RepresentationDisciplinary RulesDriver-Passenger ConflictLegal EthicsWorkers' Compensation Law implicationsFiduciary ObligationsClient ConfidentialitySummary Judgment
References
6
Case No. 06-11-00050-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2011

John Leeman Isaacs and Susan Gail Isaacs v. Robert G. Schleier, Jr., and Schleier & Brown, P.C.

This case involves an appeal by John Leeman Isaacs and Susan Gail Isaacs against their former attorney, Robert G. Schleier, Jr., and his firm. The Isaacses' claims for breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and constructive fraud against Schleier stemmed from a prior lawsuit where Schleier allegedly engaged in dual representation during a property sale. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of Schleier, concluding that the Isaacses' claims were legal malpractice claims barred by a two-year statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that the Isaacses' claims were indeed malpractice claims and that the asserted tolling provisions (discovery rule, fraudulent concealment, and Hughes rule) did not apply because the Isaacses had knowledge of the potential dual representation allegations as early as 2002. Therefore, their 2005 lawsuit was filed outside the statutory limitations period.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsDual RepresentationBreach of ContractNegligenceBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent ConcealmentDiscovery RuleHughes Tolling ProvisionSummary Judgment
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gore v. Amoco Production Co.

This case concerns a common law personal injury action brought by an employee against her employer. The plaintiff was injured after falling over a roll of carpeting at work and subsequently received a settlement from the employer's compensation carrier under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Despite this, she asserted a common law action, arguing the employer was liable in a dual capacity as both employer and occupier of the premises. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, citing the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, rejecting the 'dual capacity' doctrine based on strong precedent from Cohn v. Spinks Industries, Inc., which emphasized that the Workers' Compensation Law represents the exclusive remedy in Texas.

Dual Capacity DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ActExclusivity ProvisionCommon Law ActionSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewLegal Precedent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 1971

Commarato v. McLeod

The President of Local 400 sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from conducting a representation election, pending the final disposition of unfair labor practice charges. The Regional Director opposed this, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. The court reviewed the factual background, including a postponed election, subsequent unfair labor practice charges filed by unions against Art Steel Company, Inc., and the Board's decision to proceed with the election despite its own 'blocking charge rule'. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's discretionary order to proceed with the election, as it did not fall under the narrow exception of the Board acting in direct contravention of a specific statutory mandate. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActRepresentation ElectionPreliminary InjunctionJudicial ReviewNLRB JurisdictionUnfair Labor PracticesBlocking Charge RuleStatutory InterpretationFederal Courts
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 1974

Kaminsky v. Connolly

This appellate decision addresses an action by a plaintiff seeking pension benefits from the Road Carriers Local 707 Pension Fund. The initial trial court granted the plaintiff a pension against the union despite finding him a stranger to the fund and no specific relief sought. However, the appellate court determined that the plaintiff, an owner-driver, was never covered by the collective bargaining agreement and made no contributions to the pension fund. Furthermore, even if considered an employee, he lacked the requisite 15 years of service for eligibility. The court also clarified that federal law governs the union's duty of fair representation, requiring proof of bad faith, which the plaintiff failed to provide. Consequently, the judgment awarding damages was modified, and the complaint against the appellant union was dismissed.

Pension FundLabor UnionTaft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementOwner-DriverEmployee EligibilityFair Representation DutyFederal LawAppellate ReviewComplaint Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2004

Portlette v. Toussaint

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action regarding breach of a duty of fair representation, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to support the claim. The decision cited several precedents to support the dismissal. Additionally, the plaintiff's other arguments were found to be without merit.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintAppellate AffirmationCivil ProcedureCPLR 3211Rockland CountySupreme CourtSufficiency of Pleadings
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 1545, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America v. Vincent

Local 1545, a labor union, initiated this action against Merle D. Vincent, Jr., Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), seeking to enjoin a representation election for employees of Pilgrim Furniture Company, Inc. The NLRB had directed the election due to a 'hot-cargo' clause present in Local 1545's collective bargaining agreement, a clause subsequently rendered unenforcible by Congress. The court first established jurisdiction over the regional director, dismissing arguments regarding indispensable parties. The core legal question was whether the NLRB's policy to direct an election based on the hot-cargo clause was so unfounded as to warrant judicial intervention. The court ultimately found a reasonable basis for the NLRB's policy and concluded that the board's action neither violated an explicit statutory command nor raised a significant constitutional question. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and the motion for a temporary injunction was also dismissed as moot.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Representation ElectionInjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementHot-Cargo ClauseJurisdictionStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor Practice
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Ramsey

This appeal concerns a judgment that set aside a workers' compensation compromise settlement agreement. The Plaintiff alleged fraud, mistake, and conflict of interest by his former attorney, Allen McFall, who had also represented the Defendant Texas Employers’ Insurance Association. While the jury found the Plaintiff did not acquiesce to the dual representation and was entitled to more money, the appellate court found no agency relationship between the attorney and the carrier was established. Furthermore, any alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the attorney could not be imputed to the carrier. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and judgment was rendered that the Plaintiff take nothing.

Workers' CompensationCompromise Settlement AgreementFraudMistakeConflict of InterestDual RepresentationAgencyTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewReversed and Rendered
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 834 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