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. M2002-01204-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2003

Hazel Ann Edde v. Gladys Dalton Edde

Hazel Ann Edde (Wife) filed for divorce from Gladys Dalton Edde (Husband) after a thirty-six year marriage, citing irreconcilable differences, inappropriate marital conduct, and adultery. The trial court granted the divorce to the Wife, divided marital property, and awarded her $425 per month in alimony in futuro. Husband appealed the alimony award, arguing that Wife had no need for it and he lacked the ability to pay. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the evidence supported the trial court's findings regarding Wife's economic disadvantage, the infeasibility of her rehabilitation, and Husband's ability to provide support. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

DivorceAlimonySpousal SupportMarital Property DivisionAppellate ReviewEconomic DisadvantageAbility to PayInappropriate Marital ConductAdulteryTrial Court Discretion
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Southern Electronics Co., Inc.

The debtor, Southern Electronics Company, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and proposed to reject its collective bargaining agreement with the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The debtor argued that the seniority provisions of the agreement protected unproductive employees, contributing to financial losses. The court reviewed legal standards for rejecting such agreements, opting for a 'balancing of the equities' test. Despite concerns about the debtor's intransigence and lack of documentation for employee unproductivity, the court found the agreement burdensome due to potential arbitration costs and critical need for reorganization funds contingent on rejection. Ultimately, the court permitted the rejection of the agreement and confirmed the debtor's plan of reorganization, prioritizing the continuation of the business and the interests of current employees and unsecured creditors over the perpetuation of the collective bargaining agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementContract RejectionLabor LawDebtor in PossessionSeniority ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeReorganization PlanEquities Balancing Test
References
14
Case No. 10-14-00132-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2016

Tractor Supply Co. of Texas, L.P. v. Kenneth Edd McGowan

Kenneth Edd McGowan sued Tractor Supply Co. of Texas, L.P. for personal injuries sustained while working as a temporary employee at Tractor Supply's distribution center. McGowan was injured when a pallet of dog food was pushed off a rack by a Tractor Supply employee. The trial court found Tractor Supply liable and awarded McGowan damages, but Tractor Supply appealed, asserting an exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court determined that McGowan was considered an employee of Tractor Supply for workers' compensation purposes and that Tractor Supply was covered by an insurance policy obtained by Job Link Personnel Services, Inc., which included an Alternate Employer Endorsement. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Tractor Supply was entitled to the exclusive remedy defense, thereby barring McGowan's recovery.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyTemporary Employment AgencyEmployer-Employee RelationshipNegligencePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageAlternate Employer Endorsement
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Arthur Murray, Inc. & Ricciardi

Justice Froessel dissents, advocating for the modification of the lower court's order. The petitioner seeks to stay arbitration concerning a dispute stemming from nine identical franchise agreements. Justice Froessel argues that the clear language of these agreements, coupled with the absence of a clause preventing unreasonable withholding of consent and the specific nature of the agreements, grants the petitioner the right to refuse consent to their assignment, citing several cases including Allhusen v. Caristo Constr. Corp. The dissenting opinion also asserts that the rule of good faith does not apply in this context. Consequently, it is argued that the portion of the dispute related to damages from the arbitrary withholding of consent to assignments is not arbitrable. Therefore, the orders of the court below should be modified to grant the petitioner's application to stay arbitration regarding the damages claim arising from the refusal to consent to the assignment of franchise agreements; otherwise, affirmed.

arbitration stayfranchise agreementsassignment of contractsconsent withholdingcontract interpretationgood faith rulenon-arbitrable claimsappellate reviewdissenting opinioncontractual rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2002

Claim of Estate of Lutz v. Lakeside Beikirk Nursing Home

The case involves an appeal by a claimant from two Workers' Compensation Board decisions concerning a waiver agreement. The decedent, Beverly Lutz, her employer, and carrier had a proposed settlement agreement that was filed but not yet approved when she died. The Board, through Commissioner Tremiti, refused to honor the agreement after the carrier and Special Funds withdrew their consent. Although an approval notice was mistakenly issued, the Board later corrected it, ruling the agreement was never approved. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board had continuing jurisdiction to correct its error and that the withdrawal of consent by the carrier and Special Funds justified the disapproval of the agreement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementWaiver AgreementDeath BenefitsBoard ReviewJurisdictionConsent WithdrawalStatutory InterpretationRegulation ValidityAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2013

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement between a wealthy plaintiff (husband) and a defendant (wife). The defendant challenged the agreement, alleging overreaching and manifest unfairness during negotiations, while the plaintiff sought its enforcement. Although the motion court granted a trial on the maintenance waiver, it dismissed other counterclaims. Justice Feinman's dissent argues that summary judgment should be denied for all counterclaims, emphasizing the need for a full trial to assess the credibility of the parties and resolve material factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's conduct during negotiations and the agreement's potentially unfair terms, particularly highlighting the distinct legal standard of 'manifest unfairness' in marital agreements.

prenuptial agreementmarital agreementsummary judgmentunconscionabilitymanifest unfairnessoverreachingfiduciary dutyequitable distributionspousal maintenance waiverproperty distribution
References
46
Case No. ADJ2516908
Regular
Feb 23, 2010

LETICIA TAPIA-SERRATO vs. MISSION FOODS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, INC., CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

This case involves Mission Foods (defendant) petitioning for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The defendant claimed a mutual mistake regarding the EDD lien in a Compromise and Release agreement. However, the Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report that found no mutual mistake. The defendant admitted awareness of the EDD lien and signed an agreement making them responsible for all liens.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDMISSION FOODSAMERICAN HOME ASSURANCECHARTIS CLAIMSINC.LETICIA TAPIA-SERRATOORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONEDD LIENCOMPROMISE AND RELEASEMUTUAL MISTAKE
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harrison v. Harrison

This personal injury case involves an appeal stemming from a judgment in favor of John Edd Harrison (appellee) against his brother Benford Harrison (appellant). John Edd sustained severe leg injuries when a log fell from his truck at a sawmill in Trinity, Texas, on September 20, 1973. He sued Benford, alleging employment, Benford's non-subscription to worker's compensation, and failure to provide reasonably safe equipment, which proximately caused his injuries. A jury found in favor of John Edd, awarding $100,000. Benford appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for negligence and proximate cause, and arguing the trial court erred by not submitting a 'special employee' issue regarding John Edd's potential employment by Arnold Starr. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding ample evidence supported the jury's findings on unsafe equipment and proximate cause. The court also determined that John Edd was not a 'special employee' of Arnold Starr, as Benford retained control over his brother's work, and the defense was not properly pleaded or supported by evidence. Finally, the court found no reversible error in appellee's counsel's closing arguments concerning insurance.

Personal InjuryEmployer LiabilityUnsafe EquipmentProximate CauseEmployee StatusWorkers' Compensation Non-SubscriberBorrowed Servant DoctrineSpecial EmployeeAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2006

In Re Northwest Airlines Corp.

Northwest Airlines Corporation and its affiliates (Debtors) filed a motion under § 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code to reject a collective bargaining agreement with the Professional Flight Attendants Association (PFAA) after PFAA's membership failed to ratify a negotiated agreement. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Allan L. Gropper, found that the rejection was necessary for the Debtors' reorganization. The court also determined that PFAA rejected the Debtors' proposal without good cause and that the balance of equities clearly favored rejection. Consequently, the court authorized the Debtors to reject the agreement and implement new terms, specifically those of the March 1 Agreement, with a fourteen-day stay to allow for further negotiation. This decision aims to facilitate the airline's financial restructuring and emergence from Chapter 11.

Bankruptcy LawCollective BargainingAirline ReorganizationLabor DisputeSection 1113 MotionUnion NegotiationsFlight AttendantsWage ConcessionsWork Rule ChangesGood Cause Standard
References
22
Case No. 03-06-00501-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2007

Edd Hendee, Individually and as Executive Director of C.L.O.U.T. v. David Dewhurst, Tom Craddick, State of Texas, and the Texas Legislative Budget Board

This case originated from a suit filed by Edd Hendee and Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes (C.L.O.U.T.) against the Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, Comptroller, members of the Legislative Budget Board, and the State of Texas. Plaintiffs challenged H.B. 1, enacted in response to the Neeley v. West Orange Cove case, which aimed to shift public school funding. They alleged that H.B. 1's appropriation violated Article VIII, Section 22 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 316 of the Government Code by exceeding the biennial cap on the rate of growth of appropriations. Plaintiffs also argued that Chapter 316 constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The district court granted the State Defendants' plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the unconstitutional delegation claim but reversed and remanded the claims regarding the unconstitutionality and illegality of H.B. 1's appropriation for further proceedings, noting that Plaintiffs are entitled to amend their pleadings to address associational standing defects.

Constitutional LawState AppropriationsSpending CapLegislative Budget BoardTaxpayer StandingSeparation of PowersJudicial ReviewPublic School FinanceTexas ConstitutionGovernment Code
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 3,597 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