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-CV-3580
Regular Panel Decision

Cantu v. Flanigan

Plaintiff Jose Ramiro Garza Cantu sued defendant Billy R. Flanigan for defamation, leading to a jury award of $38,000,000 in economic damages and $150,000,000 in non-economic damages. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the economic damages but remanded for an explanation regarding the non-economic damages' excessiveness. This court, applying New York law (N.Y. CPLR § 5501(c)), reviewed factors like Cantu's standing, the nature and circulation of the defamatory statements, and their injurious tendency. Despite the award being higher than precedents, the court affirmed the $150,000,000 non-economic damages, noting the severe economic losses, the egregious nature of Flanigan's attempted criminal extortion, and the proportionality to economic damages in similar cases.

DefamationEconomic DamagesNon-Economic DamagesJury AwardExcessiveness of DamagesNew York LawCPLR 5501(c)Second Circuit RemandReputation DamageMental Anguish
References
26
Case No. 03-08-00626-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2010

Safeshred, Inc. v. Louis Martinez, III

Louis Martinez, III, an employee of Safeshred, Inc., was terminated after refusing to drive a commercial vehicle he deemed unsafe and noncompliant with federal and state regulations. Martinez sued Safeshred, alleging wrongful termination under the Sabine Pilot exception to the at-will employment doctrine. A jury awarded Martinez economic damages, compensatory damages for non-economic losses including mental anguish, and exemplary damages. Safeshred appealed, challenging the availability and sufficiency of exemplary and compensatory damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the awards for economic and exemplary damages, finding punitive damages are proper in Sabine Pilot actions and supported by evidence of malice. However, the court reversed the award for compensatory damages for mental anguish, ruling that the evidence presented did not meet the legal sufficiency standard for such damages in Texas law.

Retaliatory DischargeAt-Will EmploymentSabine Pilot DoctrinePunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesMental AnguishLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyCommercial Vehicle SafetyFederal Motor Carrier Regulations
References
47
Case No. 09-20-00040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Kyle M. Jaeger and Jaeger REO Holding Trust v. Scott Brown

Kyle M. Jaeger and Jaeger Reo Holding Trust (Appellants) appealed a no-answer default judgment obtained by Scott Brown (Appellee). The trial court had awarded Brown economic damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees due to Appellants' failure to appear or answer Brown's suit concerning a real estate transaction. Appellants raised six issues on appeal, arguing errors in denying their motion to set aside the judgment, Brown's failure to establish a prima facie case, excessive damages, multiple recoveries for a single injury, improper service on the REO Trust, and insufficient evidence for attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals largely overruled the liability arguments but found the evidence factually insufficient to support the full amounts of economic damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. The court suggested a remittitur for economic and punitive damages and remanded the case for a new trial on attorney's fees or a full redetermination of damages if the remittiturs were not accepted.

Default Judgment AppealEconomic DamagesPunitive DamagesAttorney's FeesReal Estate FraudBreach of ContractNegligent MisrepresentationConversionUnjust EnrichmentRemittitur
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

7 World Trade Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The case involves an appeal where plaintiffs sought damages from Westinghouse Electric Corp. for negligent design and manufacture, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty after explosions in bus ducts supplied by Westinghouse caused injury to workers and damage to the ducts at 7 World Trade Center. The trial court found Westinghouse 70% liable for negligence and strict liability. However, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment, vacated the prior damage award, and dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that under the economic loss rule established in Bocre Leasing Corp. v General Motors Corp., plaintiffs could not recover for purely economic losses in tort without allegations of bodily injury or damage to other property. The court clarified that personal injury claims by workers did not extend to the plaintiffs' economic losses and that the Bocre rule applies to immediate purchasers.

Product LiabilityEconomic Loss RuleNegligenceStrict LiabilityBreach of Implied WarrantyAppellate ReviewTort LawDamagesBus DuctsWorld Trade Center
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. v. Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas), L.P.

This case addresses the proper method for compensating a landowner for the destruction of trees on their property. Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. (Wheeler) sued Enbridge Pipelines, L.P. (Enbridge) for breach of contract and trespass after Enbridge destroyed several hundred feet of trees while constructing a pipeline, violating an agreement to use an underground boring method. The Texas Supreme Court clarifies the application of the temporary-versus-permanent injury distinction to real property damages, holding it applies to both tort and contract claims and is a question of law for the court. The Court confirms two exceptions to general damage rules: the economic feasibility exception, deeming the injury permanent due to restoration costs significantly exceeding market value diminution, and the intrinsic value of trees exception, allowing recovery for ornamental and utilitarian value even with nominal market value loss. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to address remaining issues consistent with this opinion.

Real Property DamagesBreach of ContractTrespassTree DestructionTemporary vs. Permanent InjuryDamages CalculationEconomic Feasibility ExceptionIntrinsic Value of TreesAppellate ReviewJury Instructions
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Syrnik v. Polones Construction Corp.

In this memorandum decision and order, the Court addresses defendant Polonés Construction Corporation's motion for a new trial regarding damages awarded to plaintiff Yurek Syrnik. Following a jury trial on discrimination claims under federal and New York state/city laws, Syrnik was awarded $105,981.27 in economic damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. The defendant sought a new trial, challenging both the fact and amount of the punitive damages. The Court denied the motion, finding the defendant's conduct reprehensible and the punitive damages award, which represented a less-than 5:1 ratio to economic damages, was reasonable and not excessive given the circumstances and comparable legal precedents, especially under the New York City Human Rights Law.

DiscriminationPunitive DamagesNew Trial MotionFederal Civil ProcedureEmployment LawJury VerdictCivil Rights ActReprehensibilityExcessive DamagesEconomic Damages
References
11
Case No. 03-08-00626-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2010

John Williams v. State

Safeshred, Inc. fired Louis Martinez after he refused to drive a commercial vehicle he deemed unsafe and noncompliant with federal and state regulations. Martinez sued, alleging wrongful termination, and a jury awarded him economic, compensatory (mental anguish), and exemplary damages. Safeshred appealed, challenging the availability and amount of damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the awards for economic and exemplary damages, ruling that punitive damages are proper in Sabine Pilot actions. However, the court reversed the compensatory damages for mental anguish, citing insufficient evidence of severe distress, and found that Sabine Pilot claims sound in tort, not contract.

Wrongful TerminationSabine Pilot ExceptionAt-Will EmploymentPunitive DamagesExemplary DamagesCompensatory DamagesMental AnguishLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L.I. Head Start Child Development Services, Inc. v. Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County, Inc.

This case, a "MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER," addresses a class action brought by L.I. Head Start Child Development Services, Inc. and Paul Adams against Community Action Agencies Insurance Group (CAAIG), the Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County, Inc. (EOC Nassau), the Economic Opportunity Council of Suffolk County, Inc. (EOC Suffolk), Yonkers Community Action Program, Inc. (Yonkers CAP), and the Estate of John L. Kearse. The plaintiffs alleged various breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA, including the diversion of reserves, failure to adequately fund the plan, failure to collect delinquent contributions, and unjust enrichment. The court found in favor of the defendants on the claims of reserve diversion and unjust enrichment. However, the defendants were found liable for failing to adequately fund the CAAIG Plan, with damages to be determined in a future hearing, and EOC Nassau, Yonkers CAP, and Kearse's Estate were held liable for $9,000 plus interest for failing to collect delinquent contributions from EOC Suffolk.

ERISA Fiduciary DutyEmployee Benefit PlanDelinquent ContributionsUnjust EnrichmentCo-Fiduciary LiabilityTrust Agreement AmendmentsPlan ReservesClass Action LawsuitEastern District CourtPension and Welfare Funds
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Lora Abbott Seabury, an employee at a correctional facility, filed a complaint in 2010 alleging sexual harassment by male coworkers, creating a hostile work environment. An Administrative Law Judge found in her favor, recommending substantial economic and non-economic damages. The Commissioner of Human Rights adjusted the economic damages but adopted the recommendations. The correctional facility (petitioner) sought to annul the determination, while Seabury sought modification and confirmation. The Court upheld the finding of a hostile work environment due to gender-based harassment, crediting Seabury's testimony about daily harassment, supervisors' inaction, and gender-biased statements. The Court also affirmed the $300,000 award for noneconomic injuries, finding it supported by evidence of severe psychological trauma, including PTSD and major depressive disorder. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Seabury's award should not be offset by workers' compensation benefits and that pension losses must be compensated, remitting the matter to determine those damages.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentGender DiscriminationAdministrative ReviewDamages AwardEconomic DamagesNoneconomic DamagesWorkers' Compensation OffsetPension BenefitsDuty to Mitigate
References
29
Case No. 2-09-265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. v. Shelby Jackson

Appellants Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. appealed a judgment following a bench trial in favor of Appellee Shelby Jackson. The appellants contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to establish DTPA violations, economic damages, an unconscionable act by Norris, mental anguish damages, and entitlement to treble damages or attorney's fees. The trial court found that Avery violated the DTPA by misrepresenting rights and failing to disclose information, causing $500 in economic damages, which were trebled. It also found Norris committed an unconscionable act intentionally, causing $2,500 in mental anguish damages, also trebled. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support all findings.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActDTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActEconomic DamagesMental AnguishSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesContract ModificationConsumer ProtectionTexas Law
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 4,343 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